BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

Subject: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 08:56 PM

Dont tell the Anti Bushites here but WMDs were found in Iraq. Right now it is one of the left leaning Main Stream media's best kept secrets.

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 found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:00 PM

Nice blurb for a book. So, who says anyone should believe this guy?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:03 PM

And, if true, why hasn't anyone told our glorious leader?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:06 PM

And further more, if you took 'umm all together they would represent about 1/1,000,000th of the WMD that the US brought with 'um to occyupy Iraq...

So exactly, G-duck, what is yer point here???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:07 PM

From the book:

In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium—the kind used to make fuel for atomic bombs—in a nuclear facility in Iraq, according to BBC News. The BBC has been consistently critical of Bush and the Iraq war. U.S. Department of Energy experts also removed 1,000 radioactive materials in "powdered form, which is easily dispersed," said Bryan Wilkes, an Energy Department spokesman. The material would have been ideal for a radioactive dirty bomb. Then energy secretary Spencer Abraham hailed the operation as "a major achievement." Polish general Marek Dukaczewski, Poland's military intelligence chief, revealed that troops in the Polish-patrolled sector of Iraq had received tips from Iraqis that chemical weapons were sold to terrorists on the black market. The weapons had been buried to avoid detection, the general told the BBC. Polish military officials bought seventeen chemical-weapons warheads from Iraqis for $5,000 each to keep them from Iraq's so-called insurgents. "An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine," the general said. "All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads." Tests confirmed that some of the warheads contained cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin. These chemical weapons were supposed to have been completely destroyed during the 1991–1998 UN inspector regime. Clearly, some WMD survived.
U.S. soldiers stormed into a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq, on August 8, 2005, and were surprised to find 1,500 gallons of chemical agents. It was the largest chemical weapons lab found in Iraq. The intelligence community remains divided over the origin of those chemical weapons (either from inside Iraq or outside) and whether they were made during Saddam's regime or after.

When a roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. convoy on May 17, 2004, it was found to contain the nerve agent sarin. Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told reporters that an "improvised explosive" was rigged to a 155 mm artillery shell that contained sarin. The shell was a "binary chemical projectile," in which the two ingredients that produce
sarin are separated by a propeller blade that spins while the shell is in flight, mixing the deadly gas to full potency. Since the chemical weapons shell was used as a bomb, and not fired from the barrel of an artillery piece, the internal rotor did not spin and the deadly agent was not widely dispersed. As a result, Kimmitt explained, only traces of sarin were produced and released. The soldiers were briefly hospitalized and decontaminated. Again, all such chemical weapons warheads were supposed to be destroyed in 1991—yet Saddam's WMD still threaten the lives of American troops to this day.

The Iraq Survey Group, led by David Kay and charged with finding WMD after the war, discovered a projectile loaded with mustard gas attached to a roadside bomb in May 2004. Fortunately, the mustard gas was "stored improperly" and was "ineffective." The mustard-gas shell is believed to be part of the eighty tons of such gas still unaccounted for.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: leftydee
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:07 PM

The "liberal media" has, until the last few weeks, given the Bush Thugs the benefit of every doubt. If there were a shred of truth to it, it would be gospel by now. Just because some wacko says a grapefruit is a duck doesn't make it quack.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:10 PM

Islamic terrorists will likely sneak across the Mexican border. There have been no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Osama bin Laden is gravely ill. These are but a few of the claims that Richard Miniter attacks in his new book, "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror." The author, an investigative journalist and writer of two New York Times bestsellers, discussed these and other issues during a speech given at the Heritage Foundation.

For those who favor greater border security with Mexico, the threat of terrorism is a popular argument. Conservative websites such as WorldNetDaily have written extensively about this subject. A 2004 book, "Illegals," attested to the danger of Islamic extremists entering through the southern border. Richard Miniter argues that there are many valid reasons to secure the vast frontier between Mexico and America, but terrorism isn't one of them. He asserts, "There has never been a known Al-Qaeda operative who has been arrested on or near the Mexican border." According to Mr. Miniter, Canada is the country to be concerned about.

The author summed up his reasoning with three main points: First, unlike Mexico, Canada has a large Muslim population. This makes recruitment easier and allows potential terrorists to conceal their activities. Miniter described this aspect by observing, "If you're a terrorist you want to blend in. You want to be the shark fin hidden among the swimmers." His second argument revolves around the instructions of recovered Al-Qaeda manuals. They direct cell members to get on welfare. This strategy, Miniter attests, makes it easy to devote all energies towards terrorism. Canada has a very generous welfare program, Mexico does not. Regarding his third and final claim, the author commented, "I'm not going to argue that the Mexican police are the world's finest. However, once they have you in custody, you tend to stay there for a while." This, Miniter asserts, is not true with Canada. He references the case of Ahmed Rassan, the so-called "Millennium bomber." In the year 2000 Rassan attempted to blow up Los Angeles Airport on New Years Day. His plan failed, but it was later learned that the Canadians had previously arrested the bomber several times. They never held Rassan for more then a day.

"There is no evidence," Mr. Miniter intoned, "of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. No evidence. None. Zero. The only problem is that's not true." He then cited a 2004 Department of Energy operation that recovered 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium in Iraq. Additionally there is the case of a roadside bomb found in Iraq that contained illegal chemicals, including the fatal nerve agent, Sarin. The author qualifies his comments by proclaiming, "I'm not saying vast stockpiles have been found…I'm not saying there's a grand central warehouse. That hasn't been found." However, insisting that no weapons have been found, according to Mr. Miniter, is simply a factual error.

Media reports regarding Osama bin Laden often depict him as ailing or report that he is on dialysis. Richard Miniter describes this as "provably false." He starts by mentioning that bin Laden has repeatedly denied being in poor health. There is also the testimony of Osama's doctor who was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and interrogated by the CIA. This physician rejects such claims as well. Mr. Miniter expands on his thesis by claiming all "bin Laden is sick" stories grew out of one 1998 article from a small Pakistani newspaper. All other subsequent stories emerge from this starting point. Richard Miniter believes that such claims grew out of a need by Pakistan to pacify America. The author informs, "Here's where a little history helps. On August 7, 1998, in East Africa, two U.S embassies explode within nine minutes of each other. [This is] one of the deadliest attacks on U.S diplomats in the history of our country." Miniter claims that this resulted in the Clinton administration pressuring Pakistan to turn over bin Laden. So, a story that proclaims Osama is in poor health would be in the mutual interests of both Pakistan and a President that, Miniter alleges, doesn't really want to deal with the terrorism problem. "It allows the Clinton administration to have an easy victory without having to do anything," he announced. The Pakistanis, including President Musharraf, have since backed off the claims of an ailing bin Laden. Miniter described the entire situation, as "a classic case of disinformation."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:14 PM

Who Says There Were No WMDs in IRAQ?
by Doug Edelman
Nov 7, 2005


There is no truth to the disinfomation propogated by the mainstream media, which postulates there were no WMDs, and that Saddam's stockpiles were all destroyed after Gulf War One.
While it is true that no assembled or launch-ready nuclear or chemical/biological weapons have been found, the fact is that many component parts of these weapons have been found – and they even got some mention in the press!

For example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm

The U.S. has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

"This operation was a major achievement," said U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement. He also said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".

Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html


http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_2121151.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:19 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered
Post-Invasion Cache Could Have Been For Use in Weapons

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A18

BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.



Materials found in a warehouse in Mosul could yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, according to a U.S. military spokesman. He said the lab was relatively new, dating from some time after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. (Photos By Department Of Defense)



News From Iraq
Two Suicide Bombings Kill 40 in Baghdad, Tikrit
Al Qaeda Claims Responsibility for Jordan Attacks
The 'Nation' at War
Bombings Kill Over 50 At 3 Hotels In Jordan
Intelligence Probe Takes Shape
More News
Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been "coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.

Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.

Military officials did not immediately identify either the precursors or the agent they could have produced. "We don't want to speculate on any possibilities until our analysis is complete," Col. Henry Franke, a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer, was quoted as saying in a military statement.

Investigators still were trying to determine who had assembled the alleged lab and whether the expertise came from foreign insurgents or former members of Hussein's security apparatus, the military said.

"They're looking into it," Boylan said. "They've got to go through it -- there's a lot of stuff there." He added that there was no indication that U.S. forces would be ordered to carry chemical warfare gear, such as gas masks and chemical suits, as they did during the invasion and the months immediately afterward.

U.S. military photos of the alleged lab showed a bare concrete-walled room scattered with stacks of plastic containers, coiled tubing, hoses and a stand holding a large metal device that looked like a distillery. Black rubber boots lay among the gear.

The suspected chemical weapons lab was the biggest found so far in Iraq, Boylan said. A lab discovered last year in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah contained a how-to book on chemical weapons and an unspecified amount of chemicals.

Chemical weapons are divided into the categories of "persistent" agents, which wreak damage for hours, such as blistering agents or the oily VX nerve agent, and "nonpersistent" ones, which dissipate quickly, such as chlorine gas or sarin nerve gas.

Iraqi forces under Hussein used chemical agents both on enemy forces in the 1980s war with Iran and on Iraqi Kurdish villagers in 1988. Traces of a variety of killing agents -- mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX -- were detected by investigators after the 1988 attack.

No chemical weapons are known to have been used so far in Iraq's insurgency. Al Qaeda announced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States that it was looking into acquiring biological, radiological and chemical weapons. The next year, CNN obtained and aired al Qaeda videotapes showing the killings of three dogs with what were believed to be nerve agents.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:21 PM

Still awaitin' a non cut-n'post answer to my question, duck...

Or aren't you capable of makin' such a dangerous step into the real world here in Mudville???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:24 PM

And for another view:

Look here.

Click in the right-hand column. Another page will come up. Look to the left side and click there.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:24 PM

Read my first post.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:29 PM

Well, after carefully reading each of those links, I still see no indication that any chemical or radio-explosive weapons have been found.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:30 PM

WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.

Apt title.

� Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

Oh, nonsense. Saddam did have uranium (which made the Niger yellow-cake claim even more dubious), but it was under IAEA watch and was not highly enriched.

� Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

Nonsense. Pure hogwash.

� Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

Dubious. But it was in bad shape, and didn't go off. No one says that Saddan never had CW (in fact he used them, after which the Republicas thwarted effort to put export restrictions on him [as requested by groups like HRW]). Sure, someone may have absconded with one or a few shells, but they were in pretty bad condition, and hardly a workable arsenal. Only when you invade the country and put yourself in position to be hit with such bombs, does any danger even arise. But FWIW, all of the 2000+ deaths in Iraq have been due to conventional weapons, accidents, etc., and not a single soldier has died from CW attack.

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

Oh, you mean the radionuclides you can find in pretty much any medical facility and teaching hospital? The stuff that the coalition forces made no effort to secure in the invasion???

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

Nonsense. None were filled. These were found (and secured) by the U.N. teams before the invasion, and were probably just misplaced. But, as I noted, none were actually loaded with an actual CW.

This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book,...

So the other disinformation is even shoddier?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: leftydee
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:30 PM

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to getcha. Being on the Best Seller List means little. Lots of fiction has that honor. Who cares what conservative websites say? Take a look at The Drudge Report and Conservative(Jeff Gannon)Guy.com, just paranoid nonsense. Terrorists don't have to cross the Rio Grande at night. There are lots of other points of entry. I live near Lake St Clair, a short boat ride from Canada at night. 5 minutes tops from Windsor to Detroit. Then a 15 minute drive to the largest Arab community outside the Middle East for cover. OOOOOOH Scarey!!! Be watchful, yes.... but get the knot out of your guts. Relax... life is good

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM

It's all good. Uh, has anyone actually GOT one of the WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:43 PM

Richard Miniter:

1. Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror
2. Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror
3. Losing Bin Laden : How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror


Coming from Richard Miniter:

"How I Made Millions Scaring The Pants Of Yokels While Propping Up My RW Pals: A three volume boxed set of RW political screeds."

No thanks.

Say, G-Duck and GUEST,A: Care to explain how Dubya is "winning the war on terror"? Is Amman the new "flypaper"? Oh, yeah, and where's Osama been Forgotten?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:55 PM

GOOD eye, Arne. Great post.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:14 PM

Care to 'splain why the claim GWB lied about WMDs is not Bullshite?

If Joe Wilson has written a book that does not mean he is a liar but if someone else on the right side of the aisle writes a book, everything he says is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:15 PM

No one said that. Produce one of the weapons. That I would believe. Where are the damned weapons, Geoduck?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Metchosin
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:16 PM

I wonder if Guest, Geoducks sattelite has been hacked lately and he's now predisposed to rapid eye blinking too.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:31 PM

Read all about it.


The sire above is excellent, BTW. However, I would like to know where the WMDs are. I don't really care what anyone wrote in a book. I've read books about Yeti/Sasquatch, too. Show me one!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:31 PM

The sire above is excellent, and so is the SITE!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:51 PM

How sad. A small, wretched, devastated, and starving country has a few pathetic remnants of WMDs left (according to the book) and it cannot even manage to use them to any noticeable effect when invaded full scale and occupied by the biggest military power on Earth. My, my, how terribly dangerous Iraq must be! About as dangerous as Denmark was to Nazi Germany...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:56 PM

Some time ago, the U. S. Army found some long-buried stuff from Saddam's little war with Iran. None of it fits the appelation, WMD. This was well-reported in the press.
Perhaps Guest's tale is from a blown-up version of this story.
I listen regularly to the BBC News, and no WMD report has been carried that I remember, other than a report on these old, long-buried and forgotten weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 11:40 PM

If it were true Bush et al would be shouting it from the rooftops and parading the spoils on every tv program they can commandeer. It is ridiculous to believe anyone has the power to prevent him and his cadre of crowing about such supposed "validation" for his Oil War.

Having some popular noteriety does not make one an authority, either, ala Pat Robertson and his calling for the assisnation of Chavez, blaming a hurricane in Florida on "godlessness," and now his threat of coming armageddon to the folks of Dover, PA.

It's all a dream, time to wake up!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:43 AM

B.B.C.
Bullshit, Balderdash and utter Crap?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:57 AM

That would be BBUC.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:59 AM

Odd how the radical Left was always accused of conspiracy theories and now that the tide has turned, its the radical right that is delving into conspiracy theories and fictional history.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:30 AM

Yes, GUEST, the right has a full time revisionary staff to clean up behind Bush... Problem is that they apparently have been swamped here lately... And their office manager, Karl Rove, has run into a little bad luck himself...

Ahhhhh, not to mention that there are more folks paying attention now that Bush and Co. are gettin' into the working man's wallet with some degree of regularity...

Can't hide everything behind a flag, MASCAR, country music and Budwieser...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:53 AM

Bobert,

"1/1,000,000th of the WMD that the US brought with 'um to occyupy Iraq..."

Care to tell us WHAT WMD the US took into Iraq?



"So exactly, G-duck, what is yer point here???"

That the anti-war folks who stated there were not any materials are liars...

And there was NO grand jury indictment against Rove, so you might want to admit you were wrong there, too...



Peace,

The claim was that Saddam had materials and a program to produce WMDs, NOT that he had active weapons (though it sounds as if he did)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:15 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=77314&messages=119

thread.cfm?threadid=70594&messages=167

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:32 AM

Peace,

Good site. As wih all reports, each of the documents will only be believed by those who already agree with it...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:36 AM

The claim was that he had WMD, and we were in imminent danger of him using them. Anything else is revising history.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Guest Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:37 AM

"....into the real world here in Mudville???"

You are kidding aren't you Bobert.

If this is what represents real life to you pal, you want to get out more.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:42 AM

"The claim was that he had WMD, and we were in imminent danger of him using them. Anything else is revising history. "
......................................................................

The Security Council,

          Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

          Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

          Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

          Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

          Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

          Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

          Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

          Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

          Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

          Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

          Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

....

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:47 AM

Not quite correct TIA,

"The (UN/UNSCOM)claim was that he had WMD (Stockpiles or stockpiles of material to produce them), and (the evaluation of the Security Services and advisors to the Governments of those nations who joined the "Coalition of the Willing was that) we (, our national interests, our allies, and the region) were in imminent danger of him using them. Anything else is revising history.

The point has long been forgotten that the aim of the exercise was to prove beyond doubt that Iraq did not possess WMD or retain any WMD production capability.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:50 AM

Okay fellas. Now why don't you go cut and paste from speeches by Bush, Cheyney, Rice, et al. in the run-up to the war. Please post the quotes that show that they were claiming that he had a "program", but no actual WMD. I'm waiting....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:55 AM

TIA,

And I am waiting for the examples of how the anti-war folks demanded that Saddam comply with the UN resolutions, and prevent the need for action on the part of the US and allies.


Still waiting...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:29 AM

These WMD wre found and have been reported. That is not the arguement. The knock against Bush is that huge stockpiles of WMD not been found, as had been predicted.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:46 AM

The biggest WMD I've seen is the human mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:57 PM

I happen--again--to agree with beardedbruce. (This is twice in three months, bb, and it's gotta stop.)

The UN was continuing to get a run-around from Iraq over searches, etc. They kept getting stalled by this or that government official. That is true--and pretty much accepted by all except people who still think the world is flat.

The other issue being discussed is that of the US deciding to invade Iraq without UN sanction.

I do not doubt that the White House was fed some information that was less than accurate--at whose behest I have no idea. The US wanted to get into Iraq. And it did despite most of the allies from the Gulf War declining the offer to participate.

I think that George Bush is too stupid to knowingly carry-off the verisimilitude that was necessary to engage the American Congress/people in the present war. I think differently about Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, etc. The advisors to the President are dangerous people. Wars create tremendous opportunities to make money. A few companies have made megabucks on this war. Cui bono? Ask the age-old question and then ya have a place to look. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:02 PM

Peace,

Ask the age-old question about the Iraqi WMD program, as well....France, Germany, Russia- All of whom wanted to NOT enforce the UN resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: pdq
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:16 PM

beardedbruce,

Can you re-post the British intelligence report about chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? It was dated 1999 I believe. Includes items such as "16,000 litres of antharx".

There are so many threads on this and related subjects that I can no longer locate it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:27 PM

This one?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020924-usia01.htm


If not, it should be in one of the two threads I referenced earlier...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:36 PM

Teribus: The point has long been forgotten that the aim of the exercise was to prove beyond doubt that Iraq did not possess WMD or retain any WMD production capability.

More revisionist cr**. I heard rumour that the Federated States of Micronesia also have not been able to prove beyond doubt that they do not possess any WMD or any WMD production capability. Bombing will commence in 30 minutes....

As for this proof: Someone wanting to prove this would have let the inspectors finish their jobs. Someone who really didn't care about the truth of the matter (or worse, who knew it was a lie) would start a war against the suspect country (strangely enough, in the process not bothering to take any measures to secure any potentially dangerous materials that were suspected of being there, but oddly enough, rushing to protect the oil ministry) before that actual state of affairs was known. Sadly, everything that the aborted inspections did show indicated that in fact the suspicions about WoMD were (in the words of one of the inspectors) "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". You'd think a sane person would at that point say, "Hey, waiddaminnnit, this stuff isn't checking out, let's re-evalutae before getting thousands of people (including innocents) killed." In fact, that is what same people did. The U.N. Security Council refused to authorise the invasion. Dubya, after promising to seek at least a "show of hands" in the Security Council, decided against even this when it became apparent that he couldn't even manage a majority of the Security Council (despite arm-twisting and bribes) for his invasion. The rest is, sadly, history, and a rather sanguine page therein.

BB: And I am waiting for the examples of how the anti-war folks demanded that Saddam comply with the UN resolutions, and prevent the need for action on the part of the US and allies.

Saddam was complying. Strangely enough, Dubya had two different psychotic moments, and stated an obvious, glaring falsehood when he said: "[Saddam] wouldn't let [the inspectors in] [a]nd, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power." (Dubya repeated this hallucination on another occasion as well).

Yet you folks continue to defend this moron?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM

Arne,

"I heard rumour that the Federated States of Micronesia also have not been able to prove beyond doubt that they do not possess any WMD or any WMD production capability. Bombing will commence in 30 minutes...."

If there had been 14 years of non-compliance with UN resolutions, and FSM was under the legal constraints ( cease-fire terms) that Iraq was, I would not even give them 30 minutes.




"Saddam was complying."

Not according to the UN, who declared him in NON-compliance with 1441 on the deadline date.



You seem to like to revise history. Why bother even looking at the facts, if you can make up what you want to believe happened?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 03:02 PM

What Kat said, exactly. Considering how low Bush is in current polls and the recent drubbing Blair took, they'd be all over the place with this info. And remember, Bush admitted there was an "Intelligence failure" regarding WMD's. Wouldn't is just be conveninet now to "suddenly" find WMD's? I never say never,but I have doubts about this.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 03:40 PM

Some of us were talking about the chemicals, nuclear materials, and missles that violated the UN resolutions from the begining- but it just was not what the anti-war folks here wanted to hear.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 03:49 PM

BB: Just trying to show how stoopid your "prove beyond doubt" is. (OBTW, that little manoeuvre of yours is also called "moving the goalposts"). You see, BB, that the FSM (not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the other FSM) wasn't under sanctions in no way makes them any the less dangerous for having WoMD. If there's the least possibility that that they have such, then even if they aren't inclined to skin your children alive and infect your wife with pustulent anthrax today, who knows what the morrow may bring, eh? Maybe they'll be bothered by Dubya's inflection in his latest speech of historical revisionism, or just get annoyed at the next seasons episodes of "Desperate Housewives", and suddenly want to kill us all. Or they may get invaded by terra-ists who appropriate all these WoMD. You see, the potential is there, and aren't the consequences of a mistake too horrible to contemplate?

Then there's the equally stoopid notion that the only proper action in response to such hallicinatory paranoia is to go to war. In fact, quite a range of responses do present themselves to those that look rationally ... and in fact, a majority of the U.N. Security Council (so beloved by quote-mining RW apologists) thought that, given the absence of any significant findings on the ground whatsoever (and, hopefully, a growing realisation that the "intelligence" that the U.S. had trumpeted so forcefully and unequivocally was "garbage, garbage, and more garbage"), a more rational course was to let the inspections continue, and then re-evaluate what courses were prudent.

At this point, I see that a majority of the U.S. people (as well as vast majorities around the world) see that the invasion was unjustified, hasty, enormously costly in human lives, and in the end, in fact, quite counter-productive. Summing up, just a damn pi$$-poor idea, the kind that makes you think, "what were those guys smoking?"....

No escaping that, BB. You will maintain your honour and dignity a bit better if you accept that now, rather than later when your intransigence is seen more as stubbornness and obstinate and deliberate ignorance, rather than just a case of getting fooled by those that you thought were honourable men.....

[Arne]: "Saddam was complying."

BB: Not according to the UN, who declared him in NON-compliance with 1441 on the deadline date.

Balderdash. And despite Dubya's promise to actualy seek a UNSC show of hands (even if he wouldn't succeed in getting the approval of the Council), he saw that it would be a political embarrassment for him because he wouldn't even get a majority of the Council, and so he decided to break that promise and go it alone (with ramifications down the line that have been quite untoward....).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 03:59 PM

The Carnegie Foundation's thorough analysis dramatically disagrees with your conclusions and what the facts justify as conclusions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:00 PM

Arne,

Try looking at the facts. The UN DID declare hime to be in non-compliance, no matter what you belive they should have done.


ThUS worked with the UN for 14 YEARS, and Iraq still did not comply with the cease-fire terms- therefore hostilities could restart without any further votes. Sorry if you do not understand.


No escaping that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:03 PM

I still think it's rational to ask to see one of the WMDs that "WERE found in Iraq!"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:15 PM

Peace, I have stated that prohibited materials ( including raw materials and ballistic missiles the UN had forbidden him to have) WERE found. Read 1441- it talks about programs that would lead to WMD, not possesion of completed WMDs.

Hitler did not succeed in killing all the Jews- would you than state that he did not actually attempt genocide since some survived? By demanding MORE than the UN had stated he had in violation of both the ceasefire and resolutions, you are putting yourself in that corner.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:19 PM

Not at all. I damned well know he was working on WMDs. Fact.

The issue is, however, that the US is NOT the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:22 PM

The cease-fire was violated, repeatedly. The UN stated the IRAQ was in non-compliance, thus hostilities resumed. No further declaration or vote was needed. If Korean armed forces cross the DMZ, there would be no need to go to the UN for a declaration- the war is STILL IN EFFECT, albeit on hold by the cease-fire.

The US does not need to be the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:25 PM

Other countries with WMDs. Neat site, too.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:25 PM

Yes, yes...(grin)

Well, BB, I have always said and will continue to say this: It is NOT, in my opinion, a crime for a nation to possess a weapon. It is a crime for them to USE that weapon in an unprovoked, illegal, aggressive attack on somebody. The USA has done that with its weapons (B-52's, F-18's, tanks, cruise missiles, etc...) over and over again. Those are crimes. Iraq did so once against Iraq and once against Kuwait, but never against the USA. They had no real capability to attack the USA, and in any case, such an attack could only have led to their own destruction. Saddam is not a religious fanatic who wants to die for Allah at the first opportunity, so I highly doubt that he would have contemplated committing such a suicidal act as to attack the USA, even if he had weapons capable of doing so...which he did not.

Iraq probably did not possess more than a few mere scraps of what anyone would normally term WMDs by the time of the recent war, anyway, but what I am saying is that possessing such a thing is not a crime. I don't give diddly what the U.N. or the USA or you say about it, I don't think it's a crime. Using what you have to kill people is a crime.

You don't go attacking people on the basis that they might one day, someday attack you...unless you are just a self-serving, cynical opportunist with the scruples and mentality of Al Capone... or a paranoid lunatic. Then of course, yes, you do.

And that is why the majority of the U.N. was opposed to Mr Bush's war. It was not justified by the circumstances. It was the act of an outlaw government that simply does what it wants to because no is powerful enought to stop them from doing so.

That's exactly how the Romans acted when they were out conquering places. They did what they wanted to, because no one could stop them. I think they may have been less phony about their reasons for so doing than the USA is, but perhaps those were more honest times in some respects.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:41 PM

Peace,

I fail to see any on that list whom we are at war with. Prior to invading Iraq, ony two countries were at a state of war with the UN or US- Iraq and N. Korea. There were cease-fires in place, which prevented active combat until they were violated.




LH,

"once against Kuwait, but never against the USA. "

Except that our treaty obligations made that an attack on us, as would an attack on a NATO country, such as Canada.





"You don't go attacking people on the basis that they might one day, someday attack you"

Agreed- BUT Iraq was at a state of war against us already, since it attacked Kuwait and then violated the cease-fire terms, repeatedly.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:45 PM

"I fail to see any on that list whom we are at war with."

BB, that is NOT what the list is for. And the 'we' you speak of included MY country under the conditions you have stated--that is, Canada was involved in the Gulf War under the UN flag. The US seems to have decided it was in under the US flag. Not all the allies thought the US decision was such a good one.

The list was posted to give y'all a look at WMDs around the world. Lots, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:50 PM

Yes, and as I agreed, mere posession is no reason to attack those with WMD.

It was the attack on Kuwait and subsequent violation of the cease-fire terms that made the attack both legal and required.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 04:57 PM

I regard war as an actual physical event, BB, not a legal technicality.

The whole world was involved in the debate as to whether the USA should "go to war" against Iraq, prior to the younger Bush's attack. They were focused on the actual reality OF a full-scale attack, not some lawyer's legal definition of the word "war".

Bush made the decision to invade. THEN it became a war. Prior to that, it had been an ongoing state of threat and harassment (involving sanctions and some bombing in the "no-fly" zones.

We all know when a war is really a war, and playing with BS lawyer words doesn't change that. It's just common sense. When your borders are invaded, and the skies are filled with the enemy warplanes, it's a war.

The Korean War, in actual terms of reality, ended with the ceasefire, regardless of whether they agreed on paper that the war was over. A 6-year-old schoolboy can see that. Anyone can see it, except a lawyer, a politician, or someone who doesn't want to see it. Lawyers will tell you differently, because they are clever, and cleverness is always happy to twist reality any way it wants to in order to achieve its desired objective...which is to "win" a verbal point in a debate. In court, that works, but we're not in court here...we're in real life where common sense is more important than legal techicalities.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:01 PM

Had Saddam complied with the cease-fire terms, and the UN resolutions, there would have been no reason to invade Iraq.

Those "anti-war" folks who insisted that the US NOT act against the violations, BUT DID NOT DEMAND that Saddam comply are a major contributing cause of the invasion- they gave Saddam reason to think that he did not need to comply. It does not matter WHY people act, but what the CONSEQUENCES of their actions are.

I have in the past stated that the invasion was poorly planned and the post-combat phase was a foul-up- BUT the reason to go in was valid, and IMO required.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:15 PM

Here we go loop de loop
Here we go loop de lie....

Anybody else tired of Re-Fried Beardedbruce?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne L:angsetmo
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:23 PM

BB: Try looking at the facts. The UN DID declare hime to be in non-compliance, no matter what you belive they should have done.

And then he complied (despite the hallucinations of da Preznit to the contrary as I've detailed in a link above). And then the Security Council refused to authorise the armed invasion (which is a step beyond declaring Saddam in violation). The Security Council was instead in favour of letting the inspections (which Saddam did accede to after the first U.N. resolution) continue. What's so difficult to grasp about that concept? The invasion was Dubya's idea, Dubya's call, Dubya's mistake, and all his alone.

BB: ... programs that would lead to WMD, not possesion of completed WMDs.

"intentions of projects of weapons of mass destruction program related activies ... or anything, including cross-eyes glances, resembling such".

Moving the ol' goalposts again. Strange thing here, BB: While no WMD were found, no actual programs were found, no significant potential to do such was found even had there been any intent, we still have 2059 dead U.S. soldiers (and counting). Isn't it time for you to start talking about how democracy is in full flourish in the Middle East, with -- *miracle of miracles* -- an astonising 99% of the eligigle votes in some Sunni area coming out in favour of the new constitution?

BB: Hitler did not succeed in killing all the Jews- would you than state that he did not actually attempt genocide since some survived?

Godwin's Law. A deeply offensive comparison. But your problem here, even given that transgression, BB, is that essentially no WoMD were found (and before you start waugh-waughing about "but ... but ... the violations ... it's the violations of agreements!", I'd point out that the US is/was in violation of plenty of international agreements as well [including the requirements under UNSCR 1441 itself that nations with intelligence relevant to the resolution turn such over to the UN], and if it's the death penalty for Saddam, it's the death penalty for all). See my very early comments (under the name "GUEST"; forgot to put in my name). As other wiser folks have pointed out, even the malodourous Dubya maladministration flacks have given up pretending that any WoMD were found, and they'd be screaming it at the top of their lungs if they thought they could get by with that (one problem they had is that two separate investigations by their own chosen people found just that: No WoMD).

BB: The UN stated the IRAQ was in non-compliance, thus hostilities resumed.

Just saying it is so don't make it so. Try again.

Oh, and BTW: Your apparent notion that an actual armed attack across the Korean DMZ is the same thing as a disagreement -- with plenty of room for lawyerly squabbles, where no one's lives are lost -- is quite puzzling.... Do you really think they are one and the same thing??? Tell me, truthfully....

What mattered here was whether Saddam had dangerous WoMD, not whether he could walk whatever dotted line that Dubya and co. laid down for him blindfolded and on tip-toe. Even the law recognizes the difference; substiantial compliance trumps lawyerly nit-picking. And more so, when the consequences, both in Iraqi and U.S. servicemen's lives, are so severe. Perhaps if you think about it, you might be able to see that.... Or you can go tell Cindy Sheehan and 2000 other mothers that their son is dead because Saddam only gave us 1200 pages of documents....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:28 PM

The hue and cry of the anti Bushites is:

There were no WMDs found in Iraq

Notice the word No, Nada, Keine, Negatory, Aucun

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:46 PM

Arne,

Show me where Saddam complied.


Read UNR 1441 - same goalposts the whole game.


Prohibited material and programs WERE found.


"Just saying it is so don't make it so" right back at you.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:52 PM

GregF,

So now I am required to have the "correct" opinion in order to have any opinion at all? See my discussions on freedom of speech- you seem to be weak on the concept.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:54 PM

Arne,

Have you ever talked with any of the flight crews attempting to enforce the no-fly zones prior to the invasion of Iraq? Active combat is the best description.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 06:38 PM

BB - Active combat? I'm sure. If some pilots from a superpower were flying and bombing over Canada on a daily basis for 10 years in a big "no-fly" zone that THEY had unilaterally declared to exist over British Columbia and the Maritimes, I guess we'd shoot at them. You bet we would. That's what happens when you violate the airspace of a sovereign nation.

My impression is that it would not have mattered WHAT Saddam had done to comply with Bush's demands...and he did a lot. The decision to invade had been made long before the demands were ever made. The rest was window-dressing for the benefit of public PR. Saddam knew it. There was nothing he could do, other than to simply flee his own country and go into exile. He certainly was not going to do that...and even if he had, it would have been followed by an American intervention anyway, because Iraq would have become de-stabilized. The decision to invade Iraq was made a long way back, and had nothing to do with any threat that Iraq posed to the USA or the Western World. It had to do with oil and power politics. It had to do with gaining strategic resources and strategic positioning in the Middle East.

In terms of George Bush himself...I think he's a fairly naive man, and he may well believe a great deal of what he says about his reasons for invading Iraq. I don't think the men behind him are nearly so naive, and I am referring to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and whoever else is behind them. Bush is their puppet, in my opinion, but Bush himself is probably not really aware of that. I actually feel a bit sorry for him at times. I bet he was happier running the baseball team.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 06:40 PM

"There were no WMDs found in Iraq"

Your sarcasm goes no place. For time fifty three or whatever the fuck it is

SHOW US ONE

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 06:59 PM

BB: Arne, Show me where Saddam complied. Read UNR 1441 - same goalposts the whole game.

No, no, no. Why don't you show me where ... and how ... they didn't comply. Then we can sit back, you and I, in our nice comfy chairs before our nice neat Internet-accessible terminals, far from the blood and smoke, and discuss whether any such alleged "non-compliance" was worth a single U.S. soldier dead, much less the 2000 -- and growing every day -- that we have to date. Be specific now.

BB: Prohibited material and programs WERE found.

None as amounted to as much as a duck's fart (much less the life of a single U.S. soldier). As for "programs", of those, there weren't any.

BB: "Just saying it is so don't make it so" right back at you."

Why don't you read what you just wrote. Put up or shut up. I already did my putting up at the top of the thread.

Have you ever talked with any of the flight crews attempting to enforce the no-fly zones prior to the invasion of Iraq? Active combat is the best description.

Where "attempting to enforce the no-fly zones" is defined as "provoking the Iraqis, testing their defences, trying to get them to turn on the AD radars and then sending a HARM up their ass, and bombing pretty much anything else they could on the slightest excuse." (Don't get me wrong, Clinton did the same thing, but I condemn him for this as well).

Point of fact: not a single U.S. plane "enforc[ing] the no-fly zones" was los to fire; not a single pilot hurt. The only ones doing the dying in these encounters were Iraqis. The "no-fly" zones were not a U.N.-approved measure, but were imposed unilaterally by the U.S. in the aftermath of the first Gulf war. Such an invasion of sovereign airspace is legally an act of war in itself. If any enemy or rival of the U.S. did such fly-overs of U.S. airspace, they'd be flaming wreckage in seconds. If the U.S. did not wish their planes to be shot at, the solution was within their own hands. But in fact, the U.S. deliberately sought to draw Iraqi reaction and/or fire on multiple occasions, in part to use such as an excuse to begin the softening up and weakening of the Iraqi defences and communications facilities in preparation for Dubya's coming war.

Still waiting for what you're going to tell Cindy Sheehan. Or are you going to spit on her, and malign her and insult her as the rest of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders have done, this Veterans' Day?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:14 PM

Peace:

How do you propose someone to show you a WMD found in Iraq?

Show me your brain and then I will believe you have one.

And my charge is that the Anti-Bush lynch mob claim that there were no WMDs found in Iraq is false. I could yell "thay lied" but that would be using the same lowbrow, thug tactics that they use.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:40 PM

Fine. So...what we are saying is that there were no significant amount of such weapons found as would pose any real threat to the USA or provide the USA with any real reason to launch an invasion, GeoDuck. We are saying that scaremongering was used to cajole the American public into supporting an unprovoked war...a war which was launched against the majority public opinion of almost every population in the World, including that of the UK, Bush's one serious ally in the effort.

I figure that if you looked hard enough in any country in the World (except maybe Lichtenstein and Pitcairn Island) you could find something that Bush would have used as his excuse for this war.

The fact remains, Iraq was no credible threat to the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:40 PM

So why isn't Bush/Blair et al proclaining this??????? They need YOU to come to their defense?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:42 PM

It just seems odd to me that the same people that said "there are no WMD's" are the same ones who harped on Bush because of the Hurricane Katrina debacle. According to them, because Bush took too long in getting FEMA to the site, there would be 10,000 bodies floating in a toxic soup. Did they lie? I think once a liar always a liar.


I guess the gators got the other 9000 bodies. Cause we sure ain't found THEM yet.




Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:27 PM

GUEST,Arne Langsetmo,

Purely to shut me up once and for all, please present just ONE definative quote from the good Dr. Hans Blix, prior to 17th March 2003, that clearly and unequivocally states that that Iraq possesed no WMD, that Iraq held no precursor chemicals to produce WMD, that Iraq had no programmes running aimed at producing WMD - Then I might start buying into your fantasy. I will tell you now that you will not find one.

In FACT the good Dr. Blix right up until the time that The US said enough was enough, did clearly state repeatedly that he and his inspectors were not receiving the full co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities - Now Arne that was required from day one - The UN knew that, Saddam and his buddies knew that, but unfortunately for the cosy UN back scratching, 'lets make a bit of cash out of this situation UN club', President George W Bush meant what he said and believed that HIS country was under threat, and proved it by going to the trouble and expense of parking 250,000 US troops on Saddam's doorstep.

I could not give a flying fuck whether or not WMD were found in Iraq. But the following every single person person in this world now knows for certain 100%:
- Iraq now holds no WMD.
- Iraq is no longer pursuing a policy to acquire WMD
- Iraq now no longer is in a position to threaten the peace and stability of the region.
- Iraq no longer subsidises international terorist organisations

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:39 PM

Islamic terrorists will likely sneak across the Mexican border.

Heading South I would imagine.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM

What Hans Blix was sayin' on March 17th, TeribusWantabee, was that Saddam was being cooperative about lettin' the inspectors do their jobs... Or has that part of the story been surgically removed by the Bush revisionists from the real story...

And I remember Bush demanding that Saddam prove that he didn't have any WMD's... Like how do does one go doing that??? I mean, think about it!!! How is a person supposed to prove they don't have something??? If you are teachin' somekind of math/logic/pilosophy class you coould flunk the entire class with that kinda of impossible assignment...

And there's still the question of folks who knew a lot about Iraq who were not only ridiculed by the Bush-hawks but by the press... Scoot Ritter is a prime example... Ritter, a former inspector in Iraq had a lot to say but it seems that those who were hell bent on war didn't have time to listen to what he had to say... Heck, lookin' back, he was 100% on the money while Bush was battin' 0%...

Now today, Veterans Day, Bush pulls out that lame play from his worn out paly book that got us in to the Iraq-mire, and wants folks who have seen him as the Emperior without pants to think of themselves as helping the enemy...

Well, I ain't got no beef with the 100,000 Iraqi women, kids and old folks who Bush has blown up!!! If I have a beef it's with the blower-upper!!! And so will historians!!!

Guarenteed... Think JFK, LBJ and Nixon got tarnished by Nam, you ain't seen nuthin' yet... Ths baby's all Bush's and it ain't gonna take no DNA samples to prove it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:31 PM

"Bobert - PM
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM

What Hans Blix was sayin' on March 17th, TeribusWantabee, was that Saddam was being cooperative"

Please provide reference for the above statement - if you can't provide clear unequivocal statement of fact attributed to Dr. Hans Blix - then please Bobert, shut the fuck up about it, because you are prattling on about something that never happened. just for once in your life try and get things honest and straight, something that is not coloured with your own political prejudice. You without any shadow of a doubt are one of the most bigotted people I have ever known.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:22 PM

bb-

re: your your post at 1:27 and the forward by Blair,

"So I believe people will understand why the Agencies cannot be specific about the sources, which have formed the judgements in this document, and why we cannot publish everything we know.

We all know that we can believe everything Blair has to say on the subject! Right?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:27 PM

So do you actually believe that Iraq was a real threat to the USA, Teribus? Or was about to be?

Well, apparently George Bush believed it. He seems to have, anyway, going by what he said and did. I wouldn't be surprised if he did believe it. And if he did, then of course in his own mind he would be justified in launching a preventive war.

But, hell, everyone is justified in their own mind for whatever they do...Saddam included. They all think it's the right thing to do at the time, as they see it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:29 PM

Iraq timeline 1991 thru 1999 I shortened it up as much as I could.

1991 February Gulf War Ends

3 April
Resolution 687 passes in the UN. Saddam stays in power, economic sanctions remain. Saddam must destroy weapons and allow inspection of all weapons facilities by a special UN commission: UNSCOM. Iraq is given 15 days to provide a list of its weapons of mass destruction.

4 April
Iraqi deception over weapons of mass destruction begins. Iraqi nuclear scientists are ordered to hide nuclear weapons from inspectors, collect and move computer data and formulate a justification for the existence of Iraqi nuclear labs.

6 April
Iraq formally accepts Resolution 687.

18 April
Iraq declares some chemical weapons and materials, as required under Resolution 687, but states that it does not have biological weapons program.

19 April
Swedish diplomat Rolf Ekeus is appointed Executive Chairman of UNSCOM.

9 June
UNSCOM begins first inspection in Iraq.

23-28 June
UNSCOM/IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) tries to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment called calutrons. Iraqis fire warning shots in the air to prevent inspectors from approaching vehicles. David Kay is chief UNSCOM official for that inspection.

Summer
Ekeus arranges for a loan to UNSCOM of an American U2 plane to take surveillance photos of Iraq. Many point to this event as the beginning of UNSCOM's reliance on various national intelligence agencies for help in disarming Iraq.

2 August
UNSCOM's first biological inspection team is told by Iraq that any research into biological weapons was "for defensive military purposes."

15 August
UN Security Council again demands Iraq to provide a full disclosure of its weapons.

September
UNSCOM determines that it needs to be more aggressive to uncover Iraq weapons. Former U.S. Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter is hired.

21-30 September
IAEA inspectors discover files on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Iraqis confiscate some documents from inspectors, but inspectors refuse to release other documents. In response, the Iraqis block inspectors from leaving parking lot for four days. Inspectors are freed only after UN Security Council issues a threat of force.

                
1992
18 February
Special Report of the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM details Iraq's refusal to abide by Security Council disarmament resolutions.

19 March
Iraq declares existence of 89 ballistic missiles and chemical weapons, but also states that they destroyed most of these materials unilaterally the previous summer (in violation of resolution 687).
        
May-June

Iraq provides its first Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited weapons programs.

July
UNSCOM begins to destroy large quantities of Iraq's chemical weapons and production facilities.

6-29 July

Confrontation at Ministry of Agriculture where UNSCOM believes there are important documents on ballistic missiles. UNSCOM stages 17-day sit-in outside of building. UNSCOM inspectors finally leave when their safety is threatened, and when UN Security Council seems unwilling to support UNSCOM with a threat of force.

1993

January
Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM the use of its own aircraft to fly into Iraq. Iraq also starts incursions into the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait and increases its military activity in the no-fly zones.

19 January
US forces fire approximately 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Baghdad factory linked to Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Iraq then informs UNSCOM that it will be able to resume its flights.

21 January
Clinton Inauguration.

18 June
President of Security Council protests Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM to place monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.

26 June
Clinton warns Iraq over standoff.

27 June
US strikes Iraq intelligence headquarters, in retaliation for Iraqi complicity in plot to kill former president George Bush during visit to Kuwait.

5 July
UN inspection team leaves Iraq. Iraq subsequently agrees to UNSCOM demands. The inspection team returns.

1994
10 February
Joint statement by Tariq Aziz of Iraq and Rolf Ekeus stating that significant progress had been made in both political and technical areas of weapons verification.

Spring
UNSCOM/Israel intelligence connection begins in earnest. Israel begins to provide UNSCOM with U-2 photo interpretation.

June
Weapons inspectors Ritter and Smidovitch learn, through Israeli intelligence reports, that Qusay Hussein, Saddam's younger son, is the key player in hiding and preserving Iraq's special weapons. Qusay heads the Apparatus of Special Security which is under the umbrella of the Special Security Organization (SSO).

June
UNSCOM completes destruction of large quantities of chemical warfare agents and production equipment.
September-October

Iraq rejects appeals to withdraw threat to stop cooperating with UNSCOM and starts deploying troops in direction of Kuwait. In response, US begins to deploy troops to Kuwait.

8 October
President of UN Security Council states that Iraq's demands are unacceptable and that it must withdraw troops deployed in direction of Kuwait.

15 October
Iraq states that it has withdrawn troops from border with Kuwait.

1995
UNSCOM is close to declaring Iraqi weapons inspections completed.

March
Iraq provides the second Full, Final and Complete Disclosures of its prohibited biological and chemical weapons programs.

Summer
By the middle of 1995, the unity of the UN Security Council begins to fray, as certain countries, particularly France and Russia, becoming increasingly interested in the financial opportunities of a post-sanctions Iraq.

1 July
In response to UNSCOM's evidence, Iraq admits for first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons program, but denies weaponization.

July
Iraq threatens to end all cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA if there is no progress toward the lifting of sanctions and the oil embargo by 31 August 1995.

August
Iraq provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons program.

August
Israeli intelligence report provided to Ritter reveals that Iraq was attempting to purchase missile gyroscopes (guidance devices) from a Russian export company.

8 August
Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and head of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, defects. Kamel informs UNSCOM and foreign intelligence agencies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. In response, Iraq withdraws its third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons, and turns over treasure trove of documents on its WMD programs. Iraq claims no knowledge of this and say documents were held secretly by Hussein Kamel.

November
Iraq provides the second Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited missile program.

10 November
Operation Teacup Mission #1: The search for banned missile gyroscopes. Operation Teacup was a series of UNSCOM missions that utilized foreign intelligence to uncover and intercept Iraqi attempts to reconstitute its missile programs. Scott Ritter asked for US help in intercepting a shipment of gyroscopes, but they refused. Israel helped instead. With the added help of Jordan, Ritter intercepted 240 Russian gyroscopes and accelerometers en route to Iraq from Russia. However, before UNSCOM could gain access to these gyroscopes, the CIA intercepted them.

16 December
Iraqi scuba divers are directed by UNSCOM to dredge the Tigris River near Baghdad. They find over 200 additional missile instruments and components. These items' serial numbers suggest that they originated in Russia.

1996
February

Stepped up intelligence gathering begins (as result of revelations by Hussein Kamel): UNSCOM brings eavesdropping devices into Iraq. The information is delivered to analysis centers in Britain, Israel, and the US.

Hussein Kamel, the defector and Saddam's son-in-law, returns to Iraq. Within days he is murdered along with his brother, father, sister and her children.

March
After UNSCOM is denied access to five sites (and can enter them only after significant delays) UNSCOM deploys its "Shake the Tree" tactic. Its goal is to make the Iraqis paranoid and get them to inadvertently reveal their concealment methods.

The UN Security Council criticizes Iraq for its intransigence, but does not threaten immediate military action.
        
May-June
UNSCOM supervises the destruction of Al-Hakam, Iraq's main facility for the production of biological warfare agents. (Read a report on this facility)

June
Iraq again denies UNSCOM teams access to sites.

June
US fails in its attempt to marshal support for military action in the UN Security Council.

19-22 June
Rolf Ekeus negotiates with Iraq, gaining the right for UNSCOM to inspect "sensitive" sites, but on what appears to be the Iraqi's terms. Only four inspectors will be allowed in to each of these sites.

June
Iraq provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited biological weapons program.

June
Iraq provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited missile program.

July
Ritter's attempts to conduct surprise inspections on the Republican Guard facility at the airport is blocked by Iraqi officials. By the time he and his team are allowed into the facility a few days later, they find nothing.

Summer
The UN Security Council expresses unease with UNSCOM's confrontational tactics. They want UNSCOM to move their mission toward some sort of conclusion.

August
Iraqi forces attack the city of Irbil in Northern Iraq (known as part of "Kurdistan"). President Clinton responds by expanding the no-fly zones to the southern suburbs of Baghdad, but does not attack Iraqi forces in the north.

September
Increasing tension between UNSCOM and the CIA. Rolf Ekeus meets with CIA Director John Deutch, expressing frustration that the CIA is not sharing sufficient data. Ekeus also requests more advanced technical help from the CIA for future operations.

November

UNSCOM inspectors uncover buried missile parts, but are prevented by Iraqi officials from removing these parts for outside analysis.

9 December

The UN Security Council allows Iraq to make limited oil sales for the purpose of purchasing food and medicine.

30 December

The UN Security Council deplores Iraq's intransigence on the missile parts.

1997

February
Iraq allows UNSCOM to remove missile parts.

26 March
Madeleine Albright delivers speech at Georgetown University in which she argues that sanctions likely will not end until Saddam is replaced. Many observers regard this speech as undercutting UNSCOM's ability to gain Iraqi cooperation.

June
Iraq interferes with UNSCOM's helicopter operations, threatening the safety of the aircraft and their crews.

18 June

The Security Council expresses concern over Iraqi actions against UNSCOM helicopters.

21 June
Iraq again blocks UNSCOM's teams from entering certain sites.

21 June
The Security Council passes a resolution condemning Iraq's actions, but no action is taken.

July
Australian diplomat Richard Butler succeeds Rolf Ekeus as Executive Chairman of UNSCOM.

September
Iraq provides the fifth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons program.

25 September
UNSCOM inspects a food laboratory. One of the inspectors, Dr.Diane Seaman, enters through the back door and catches men running out with suitcases. These suitcases contain log books for the creation of bacteria and chemicals. The letterhead comes from the president's office and from the Special Security Office (SSO).

UNSCOM tries to inspect the SSO headquarters but is blocked.
23 October

UN Security Council passes a resolution demanding that Iraq cooperate with UNSCOM, continues the suspension of the periodic sanctions review that it had suspended earlier this year, and foreshadows additional sanctions pending a further report on Iraq's cooperation with UNSCOM.

October
UNSCOM completes the destruction of more large quantities of chemical weapons and related equipment. Iraq only had admitted that some of this equipment had been used to produce VX gas in May 1997.

29 October
Crisis begins: Iraq claims it will throw out US inspectors and will shoot down U2 surveillance planes.

November
Scott Ritter claims that the CIA begins to withhold significant information from UNSCOM.

2 November
Iraq bars three American weapons experts from entering the country.

12 November
UN Security Council passes a resolution condemning Iraq's actions.

13 November
UNSCOM withdraws all weapons inspectors because of Hussein's order to expel all American arms experts.

14 November
Military strikes against Iraq seem likely.

18 November
Boris Yeltsin meets with Aziz. War is averted.

20-22 November
Saddam Hussein agrees to allow UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq after 3 week suspension.

24-25 November
New struggle begins over UNSCOM's inspection of Iraqi Presidential Palaces.

December
UNSCOM continues aggressive inspections, including at the Special Security Office, Saddam's personal security force, which UNSCOM believes also is coordinating Iraq's weapons concealment activities. Washington presses UNSCOM to call these inspections off after the first one is vehemently opposed by the Iraqis.

12-16 December
Richard Butler meets with Tariq Aziz in Iraq over Iraq's refusal to grant inspections of sensitive sites. Butler leaves without an agreement. Clinton reserves right to "consider other options."
                
1998
January
Iraq wants Scott Ritter's team out. They claim that the inspections team is too American-dominated, that "sensitive" sites such as Presidential palaces are off limits, and they say that Ritter is a spy.

12 January
US responds by threatening force.

15 January
Ritter gets a call from Butler the night before a surprise inspection at SSO. Butler tells him that US Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson wants Ritter to call it off and wants him to go back to Bahrain.

22 January
Monica Lewinsky story breaks.

23 January
Brink of war: serious threat of military force in the air.

31 January
Military force likely. Aircraft carrier USS George Washington is off Bahrain coast, poised for military action.

18 February
Albright, William Cohen, and Sandy Berger visit Ohio for internationally televised "town hall" meeting on Iraq. Angry audience members disrupt the meeting.

20 February
The UN Security Council passes a resolution that permits Iraq to double its "oil for food" sales, to $5.25 Billion every six months. [By January 1999, The New York Times is reporting that Kofi Annan is convinced that the Iraqi leadership is not spending the money to alleviate hunger and medical emergencies in his country, and instead continues to blame the suffering of the Iraqi people on sanctions.]

22-24 February
Crisis defused when UN Secretary General Kofi Annan reaches deal with Saddam, who promises unconditional co-operation with inspection team. Inspections resume. Saddam agrees to the inspection of the eight so-called presidential sites.

[Ritter claims that Annan secretly promised Iraq that the confrontational inspections of sensitive sites would occur only once: sometime in the next four months.]

March
US Intercepted communications are sent by satellite relay to the NSA in Fort Meade.

2 March
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright urges Richard Butler to keep Scott Ritter from heading the inspection team that is to enter Iraqi "sensitive" sites. After other leaders of UNSCOM inspection teams back Ritter in a memo to the Executive Chairman, Ritter returns to Iraq.

20-23 March
Butler states publicly that the agreement UN General Secretary Kofi Annan strikes with the Iraqis has helped to create a sense of cooperation with the Iraqis.

April
Scott Ritter complains to Richard Butler that the US, Israel, and Great Britain have stopped providing intelligence reports, and that the Americans have taken over UNSCOM's operation. American officials disagree, stating that only Ritter was cut off from information because he was needlessly complicating UNSCOM's work.

4 April
UNSCOM completes initial inspection of eight Presidential sites.

8 April
UNSCOM reports to the Security Council that Iraq's declaration on its biological weapons program is incomplete and inadequate.
        
15 May
Operation Teacup: Romania. An Iraqi delegation goes to Bucharest to meet with individuals who could provide missile guidance systems. UNSCOM sets a trap with the intent of presenting this information to the UN Security Council. But UNSCOM is never able to get this information to the Council.

Spring
An inspection team discovers a dump full of destroyed Iraqi missiles. An analysis of the parts proves that Iraq had made a weapon containing VX.
                
11-15 June
Butler meets with Tariq Aziz to develop roadmap for concluding inspections.

2 August
UNSCOM begins a planned series of surprise inspections.

3 August
Butler meets with Tariq Aziz who demands that inspections must end and that Iraq must be certified as free of weapons of mass destruction. Butler says he cannot do that. Aziz suspends talks.

5 August
Iraq suspends all co-operation with UNSCOM.

7 August
US embassies in East Africa are bombed.

17 August
Clinton admits affair with Lewinsky.

18 August
Brink of war with Iraq.

20 August
US bombs terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and a factory in Sudan in retaliation against Osama bin Laden, the accused mastermind of the East Africa embassy bombings.

25 August
Butler, according to Ritter, asked Ritter to "redefine" his team--meaning Butler wants Ritter to back off from confrontational inspections.

26 August
Ritter resigns from UNSCOM. He accuses the US of undercutting UNSCOM. He calls the UN response to Iraq "a surrender to the Iraqi leadership" and says he will not be a part of it.

9 September
UN Security Council passes a resolution which condemns Iraq's lack of cooperation.

22-23 October
UNSCOM convenes a meeting to discuss the 1998 analysis of samples taken from remnants of Iraq's special warheads. The US charges that these warheads contained traces of chemical weapons.

31 October
Iraq shuts down all UNSCOM inspections.

13-14 November
Clinton orders airstrike on Iraq. Then calls it off at the last minute when Iraq promises unconditionally to co-operate with UNSCOM.

18 November
UNSCOM inspectors return to Iraq.

23-26 November
Iraq makes it clear that it will not cooperate with UNSCOM inspectors, alternately intimidating and withholding information from them.

30 November
Butler meets with US National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to coordinate time lines for possible military strike against Iraq.

9 December
UNSCOM inspectors show up for an unscheduled search of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party headquarters. Only four inspectors are allowed to enter. Butler then calls off the inspection.

11 December
Iraq announces that inspections can no longer take place on Friday, the Muslim day of rest. They refuse to provide test data from the production of missiles and engines.

13 December
Clinton secretly approves attack on Iraq.

15 December
Richard Butler provides a report to the UN Security Council which argues Iraq is still blocking inspections. This report serves as the basis for a military strike.

16 December
UNSCOM withdraws all weapons inspectors from Iraq.

16-19 December
Operation Desert Fox: bombing commences against Iraq. The House vote on impeachment is delayed.

17 December
Some members of the UN Security Council attack Butler, saying that he manipulated the report that the US used to justify the attack against Iraq. Butler vehemently denies the charges.

19 December
Just before bombing ceases, Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan announces that Iraq will no longer co-operate. He declares UNSCOM's "mission is over."
        
21 December
Three of the five permanent members of the Security Council (Russia, France, and China) call for lifting the eight-year oil embargo, recasting or disbanding UNSCOM, and firing Butler. A US official (unnamed) indicates that the US will use its Security Council veto against any such measures.

1999
4 January
The Washington Post reports that Kofi Annan obtained evidence that the US collected eavesdropping intelligence through UNSCOM with the UN's permission.

7 January
US officials confirm their role in the monitoring operation of communications in Iraq. They say that intelligence agents from several countries, including the US, were assigned to work on inspection teams.

4 February
Richard Butler tells CNN that when his term expires on June 30, 1999, he will resign.

Source: UNSCOM's official chronology, and FRONTLINE's research.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/etc/cron.html

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:45 PM

Yo, duck, you gotta a brain... Use it and guit clicking on yer corporate bought-'n-paid-for cut 'n pastes.... Not one single person in the universe reads them... No one, other than Boss Hog's PR folks who write thuis dribble...

You got anything to say other than "Quack"???

I mean it, a long cut 'n paste here in Mudville ain't gonna get read by one single person... You prolly didn't even read it...

Quack!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:55 PM

So what is your contribution other than to criticize?

And yes I did read it and several other Scott ritter articles. I learned a lot. What have you learned today? A new way to harpoon anybody smarter than you?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:01 PM

"Iraq timeline 1991 thru 1999 I shortened it up as much as I could."

It woulda been easier to leave in what you took out. Pardon me for being so bold, but exactly WHAT did you leave out?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:07 PM

6,000 plus posts with out one single cut 'n paste... Click on "Bobert" and read some of them... You may learn a few things.... I might not spell too well 'er typt to well either but I read a lotta stuff froma lotta sources... Go back and read some of my pre-war arguments, fir instance...

Heck, I talked about jsut about every issue on the block... I've talked about prison reform... I've talked about Main Street programs... I've talked abotu public/private partnerships... I think I've prolly put more pro-active creative ideas into this jopint than anyone else... Okay, maybe as much....

You just have me pegged as a complainer but, hey, research the body of work I've done here and you'll find not one single cut 'n paste, yeah, alot of complainin' about Bush but also alot of creative ideas...

My first post in Mudcat was about the establishment of a Department of Peace....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:10 PM

No relation, I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: kendall
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:42 PM

If Saddam had had WMDs, he would have used them. Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:51 PM

The thread title is WMDs WERE found in Iraq! Personally, I'm still waiting...what was found and where? Not medical equipment, not chemicals that could be made into weapons (as could some of the stuff in my laundry room), not demilitarized artillery shells, but real weapons of mass destruction. Militarized biologicals. Toxic or incapacitating chemical agents...VX, GB, Sarin, Mustard, suit yourself. Nuclear or radio-explosive weapons. I'm waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:52 PM

What Kendall said..... Heck, if he had all this tuff then why didn't he use them????? Senior moment that day???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST, Boab
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:03 AM

Geoduck--
Congratulations on the amount of labour you have put into your "time-line" [above]. Having said that, I would like to register my opinion that it hardly stands well against all the other litanies of deception that have been thrown at the gullible over recent years. The items of truth which crept in here and there were included only because they happened to give an appearance of credibility to the aim of the writer [not all your stuff, but you must take responsibility for repeating it], this aim being to convince the aforementioned gullible that Iraq DID have "weapons of mass destruction" when GW. gallantly sent his teenagers and young men and women to fight the good fight for the oil barons and their backers. Most of those who profess to still believe in those elusive weapons are well aware that they are trying to give credence to a lie; they have some kind of perverse loyalty to the cretins in high places who used to peddle it as justification for their actions. Not nowadays---it was always about "Iraqi freedom", don't y'know?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:11 AM

"the aforementioned gullible"

I have it on excellent authority that the word 'gullible' does NOT appear in the dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:27 AM

Susu's Hubby: It just seems odd to me that the same people that said "there are no WMD's" are the same ones who harped on Bush because of the Hurricane Katrina debacle.

Ummmm, clue for you: There was a hurricane and it was heading straight for the Big Easy. In fact, many people were watching the newscasts rather than vacationing and pretending to play guitar, and were quite aware of this fact..... Just thought you might like to know.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:37 AM

Canada: we had a team from Vancouver of about fifty SAR people near New Orleans--they chartered a plane and got there before the director of FEMA knew anything was wrong. I understand they were directly responsible for helping save forty lives. FYI, Susu's Hubby.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 01:02 AM

Teribus: Purely to shut me up once and for all, please present just ONE definative quote from the good Dr. Hans Blix, prior to 17th March 2003, that clearly and unequivocally states that that Iraq possesed no WMD, that Iraq held no precursor chemicals to produce WMD, that Iraq had no programmes running aimed at producing WMD - Then I might start buying into your fantasy. I will tell you now that you will not find one.

Moving the goalposts again, eh? Blix said he couldn't find the mobile bio labs (for good reason; they didn't exist), he checked out a supposed "SCUD bunker" and found a load of chickens***, etc., etc., etc.... One of the inspectors referred to the U.S. 'intelligence' (that was finally provided after they had begged and and pleaded for months to get, despite the requirement under UNSCR 1441 that the U.S. provide such) as "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" (although I'd heard the actual terms used were even less polite). He was checking all this definitive 'evidence' that the U.S. had that proved beyond a doubt that Saddam had WoMD, and was finding zip, nada, the 'evidence' was worthless. He did check out the Iraqi assertion that some of the CW had been destroyed shortly after GW1, and found in fact that the forensic evidence there was consistent with their claims. El Baradei had checked on the nuclear stuff and found zip (and reported as much). They were being given access to the scientists to interview them. They hadn't wrapped the case up, and pleaded for more time just to make sure, but read between the lines of their statements (particularly El Baradei's scathing comments on the Niger stuff), and you could tell they really didn't expect to find anything. At that point, any rational person starts to wonder if the 'evidence' isn't a complete crock and there really isn't anything (which would be a good guess, and which is what I stated in min-March, before the invasion). And then you have to ask: If this the kind of cr** that you go to war over??? Maybe you do, but I can tell that you're a Operation Yellow Elephant candidate but more than happy to have some other schmuck's kids killed for your paranoia.

In FACT the good Dr. Blix right up until the time that The US said enough was enough, did clearly state repeatedly that he and his inspectors were not receiving the full co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities....

SFW (if true)? Making Saddam stand on one leg, hold his arms askew and say "I'm a teapot" wasn't the purpose. The purpose was to find any WoMD. And only if any alleged non-cooperation interfered with the successful accomplishment of that mission could it be relevant. But Blix stated that he was able and continuing to do his job, despite less than full cooperation (from both the Itaqia and the U.S., I might add).

Or do you really think that the failure to humiliate Saddam enough really was worth the price of 2000 American lives??? If so, you're really one sick puppy....

HTH.

G-Duck: "Iraq timeline 1991 thru 1999 I shortened it up as much as I could."

You left out 2002-2003 (wonder why?). That's when the latest inspections were done.

Bobert: Now today, Veterans Day, Bush pulls out that lame play from his worn out play book....

It's worse than you imagine, Bobert: The same damn speech, and the stoopid Repubs think that this time it's going to work.... Hell, I've heard the RW talking heads call today Dubya's "Gettysburg" moment. They really are laying it on rather thick for a retread speech (that Dubya didn't even write) that didn't work the last time either....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 01:03 AM

Peace--12.11 am;
   Jeeze!---Have I been using something from the Scots leid? Sorry!! I trust the general meaning came through nevertheless?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 01:12 AM

Boab, my apologies, buddy. Your post was/is excellent and very clear to this ol' boy. The gullible thing is an old 'joke' of sorts.

I once said that to a fellow who was very pedantic about many things. He used the word gullible in a conversation, and I told him that the word wasn't real, that it didn't appear in the dictionary. He looked it up and gave me a superior look when he found it. I asked him to read the definition to me. It was words to the effect "easily fooled or duped". I smiled back. (I had someone pull that on me--that's where I learned it. I was reaching for the dictionary but managed to stop myself.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:15 AM

"100,000 Iraqi women, kids and old folks who Bush has blown up!!! " Where did those figures come from Bobert - I know you aren't all that good with figures, so who made that number up for you, how and why?

"So do you actually believe that Iraq was a real threat to the USA, Teribus? Or was about to be?

Well, apparently George Bush believed it."

With Saddam Hussein left in power and with the removal of sanctions, yes, Iraq would pose a threat to, lets recall the phraseology used by GWB, The United States of America, the stability of the region, America's allies and the interests of the United States of America and those of her allies - Little Hawk it was never solely the threat to the US. Also I do not know whether GWB believed it, but the Security and Intelligence Agencies and House Committee's certainly, after evaluation, believed it, on the information available at the time, as did every member Government of the UNSC at the time.

Arne, no goalposts have been moved as you continue to assert. What you and those who support your point of view tend to do is cherry-pick at what people have said. Case in point regarding Iraq being a threat to the US, if you are going to raise that, then quote the whole phrase and put it in context. The aim of UNSCOM, or UNMOVIC, was not to find WMD in Iraq, it was to establish beyond doubt that Iraq held no stocks of weaponised CW or BW weapons, was not developing missiles with delivery capabilities greater than 150 kilometer range, that Iraq had not have programmes in existence aimed at developing nuclear, CW, BW and missiles. Every nation sitting on the UN Security Council in the summer of 2002 believed that Iraq had WMD, because UNSCOM had told them that they had. By the bye go and read through Dr.Hans Blix's monthly reports to the UNSC. One thing is consisted in all of them, he clearly states that he and his inspection teams did not receive the full and pro-active co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities - 1441 demanded that from day one - hence the serious consequences that followed, even before March 2003, GWB and the US Administration made no secret whatsoever what was meant by 'Serious Consequences'

GUEST,Geoduck - 11 Nov 05 - 10:55 PM

Good post, clear and informative, unfortunately it won't change anything around here, simple truth and plain statement of established and verified fact tends to confuse the cosy imaginings of the chattering "Peace at any price" Brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 07:04 AM

Teribus,

I've gone round and round with them about the 100,000 number they keep throwing around and just what it includes....the following is the first post of a thread that was quite popular for a few day here at the Cat.

"Subject: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight....
From: Susu's Hubby - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:23 PM

I guess all of you libs out there feel like you're in Florida once again by the way you're attributing the numbers of the war dead as all "civilians". (Yes, Bobert, you keep referring to all 100,000 as civilians.) It's as if you're still trying to discover the intent of the voter by looking at a blank ballot and willing it to be a vote for Gore or Kerry or whomever you're putting all of your hope and faith in at the moment.

Let's get to the count.

In another thread, a Catter asked for "proof" of where the 100,000 number came from. A fellow poster listed two links which, while putting on a seatbelt to keep out the river of sh*t because of the liberal slant (actually only one was severly slanted, the other was trying as hard as they could to actually list the numbers with some accuracy), I actually took time to read, once I got home from work. (Because I always try to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to try and care for me and mine.)

First, I'll admit that the 100,000 is an accurate number but the accuracy of the "facts" dreamed up by our fellow catters as to what exactly the 100,000 refers to is way off base.

I shall explain.

Both sites listed that only 15000-20000 of the dead were actually Iraqi CIVILIANS. A number that I actually quoted in one of my first posts on the Cat (if my memory serves me correctly).

The rest of the 100,000 are attributed to Saddam's regular army, Republican guard, and the special guys in the white jump suits ( sorry, I forgot their names). Oh.let's throw in quite a few terrorists into the mix as well as well as other fighters that came in from Syria, and other terrorist supporting countries. They make up the remaining 80,000-85,000 dead. In other words, by far, the HUGE majority of the dead were BAD GUYS.

Now let's throw this out for some analysis. Out of the 15000-20000 civilians killed, how many of these were, perhaps, killed by the 80000-85000 bad guys that we managed to kill? If memory serves me right, our troops in Fallujah stumbled across scores of individuals and entire families that were wiped out due to the bad guys holding the town for so long. How quick you libs are to forget that little fact. Here is where I will state that although the number of civilians killed is still way too many, civilians do get killed in war. Don't forget 9/11/01 and 12/7/41. 6000+ of our innocent people were killed.

So before you go and start spouting off your manufactured "facts", please take a little time to read the whole article from the source where you pull your numbers. You sure will save A LOT of embarrassment in front of your loyal throngs of lemmings.


Hubby"


Just go back and find the thread and witness the attacks that were offered afterwards. It's a little hard to follow because some of the posts are out of order due to the crash a few months ago. But you'll get the jest of what Bobert is rambling about.

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 08:27 AM

Fact is, noone but God really knows if it's 50,000 or 100,000 'cause. like the incomin' caskets at Dover Airport, Bush ain't gonna let you you in on it...

Why? Simple...

Hurts the heck outtta recruitin' here at home... He wants our kids to think that Iraq is like one of their computer war games...

Plus, he don't want folks to know the real story 'er they might quit supportin' him and his Repub buddies... Boss Hog wouldn't like that at all 'cause Bush and Co. anr a drunkard's dream... Heck, it's the corporations that are writing the legislation... That's why there are ten's of thousands of lobbiest in D.C.... You go to Capitopl Hill and they are thicker than ugly on a gorilla...

Take the Medicare Prescription Program fir instance... You think the seniors are better off with it??? Apparently you ain't a senior... We gotta alot of folks who voted fir Bush in the Luray Valley but whereever you go you hear these folks complainin' about thde ***increase*** in cost's fir the medication... I got one farmer friend who comes up and hangs around my farm who I call Mr. Clifford... His meds are going up from $15 a month to $63 a month and he ain't alone!!!!

Where's these billions of dollars going???

Well, I'll tell ya' where they are going. Right into the pockets of the folks who wrote every word of this legslation: the insurance companies and the pharmacudical companies...

If you thoughgt the average American got screwed by the Bush administration's poor response to Katrina, fasten yer seatbelts, you ain't seen nmuthin' yet...

But one thing you can say... The boy is loyal to the people who bought this job fir him!!! Yep, we got the best democracy that money can buy...

Meanwhile more and more seniors (percentage wias or othwer) will, as they have every years since Bush's lawyers stole the 2000 election, continue to slip into poverty...

Welcome to Boss Hog's America...

Now, bend over and smile...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Tam the man
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:09 AM

A load of pro bush crap

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:32 AM

Teribus: Well, apparently George Bush believed it [that Saddam was a real threatto the US]."

Well, he can believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, and flying monkeys, too (although I suspect that this would give me pause as to whether he was in need of stronger medications). But is it your contention that it's right and legal to go to war just because he believes something that ain't so?

With Saddam Hussein left in power and with the removal of sanctions, yes, Iraq would pose a threat to, ...

Yeah, and if wishes were fishes, if pigs had wings, and if cabbages were kings -- ummm, oops, never mind that last one, mon petit chou -- yes, I guess that perhaps beggars would ride and cows would jump over the moon. But there was quite a bit of dispute as to whether that would happen, and also as to what could or should be done about such and when, if such happened. In the meanwhile, Osama bin Forgotten managed to slip away. In fact, there was quite a bit of dispute about what to do if Saddam actually had WoMD in well-known places "north, south, eash and west around Baghdad and Tikrit", as the maladministration had assured us beyond doubt. War was only one of the options, and as Dubya said, it should be the "last resort", all the while making it the first and only one.... Doesn't this make you the least bit mad, Teribus?

Teribus again: ... lets recall the phraseology used by GWB, ...


Why? Are we going to have to parse him closely and carefully? ;-)

Teribus continues: ... The United States of America, the stability of the region, America's allies and the interests of the United States of America and those of her allies - Little Hawk it was never solely the threat to the US.

You must be tired from moving the goalposts around all over creation for Dubya so much. But I'd note that the interests of other nations are usually represented through the United Nations, and the United Nations refused to authorise Dubya's little war of choice. In fact, all of Iraq's neighbours refused to join the "Coalition of the Billing" this time around....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:42 AM

Teribus said [re moving the goalposts]: Case in point regarding Iraq being a threat to the US, if you are going to raise that, then quote the whole phrase and put it in context.

Hell, I'd be more that glad to have us simply agree that Saddam was never a threat to the U.S., making this point of dispute irrelevant. If you agree that Saddam wasn't such a threat, I think we can just dismiss the actual claims of the maladministration that he was as just so much bloviating and fear-mongering based of false premises. But I'd note that even Dubya's most recent speech (or is it?) doesn't back down on the imminent peril we face from Iraq as well as other places....   ;-) But, if you agree that Iraq was not a danger to the U.S. in 2002, then wouldn't you agree that the Iraq war was a "catastrophic success" (to use the words the maladministration actually used to describe it), and a completely bone-headed blunder?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:56 AM

Teribus: One thing is consisted in all of them, he [Blix] clearly states that he and his inspection teams did not receive the full and pro-active co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities - 1441 demanded that from day one - hence the serious consequences that followed, even before March 2003, GWB and the US Administration made no secret whatsoever what was meant by 'Serious Consequences'

Just so we have you on record, Teribus: Do you state, for the record, that because Saddam refused to kiss some one's boots and serve them tea personally on their inspections, that a war (killing 2000 Americans and many more Iraqis) was therefore justified? OK, so I've stretching the language a bit to emphasise a point, but do you think that failure to provide "full and pro-active" co-operation is a casus belli???

I just want to know how cheaply you value himan life.

I'd note, BTW, that "serious consequences" was deliberately left vague (I believe in part so that the U.N. had some flexibility in their potential responses depending on circumstances andthe extent of any transgressions). If they had wanted to leave no doubt as to what would happen, as you seem to be claiming here, they would have said "war". Believe me, they're not unintelligent people (which, of course, brings to mind where we should be placing you).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:05 PM

Susu's Hubby: Both sites listed that only 15000-20000 of the dead were actually Iraqi CIVILIANS.

Well, even if we were to take your numbers as fact, I'd note that this is over five times the number killed in the 9/11 attacks, in a country less than one fifth the size of the U.S. Which means that Iraq has suffered more that 25 times the devastation of an event that some people call the transforming event in the history of the United States, the date after which nothing ever will ever be the same.

I'd note that since Iraq has been damaged in more ways than simply casualties, it is suffering (i.e. WRT infrastructure, economy, medical resources, etc.) even more than that proportion.

The exact numbers don't matter too much. And we may never know them (in part because the U.S. refuses to even try and count them ... but rest assured that Iraqi families know when their loved ones have died). But it's hard to dispute that what the Iraqis have seen in the last two years has been carnage of enormous proportions.

Do you realyl want to belittle that?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:17 PM

GUEST,Arne,

I see that the meaning of the above message has sailed smoothly over the top of your cute little pointed head.

Read the message over and try again.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:45 PM

Another point that I think that needs to be made is that in WW2, over 30,000,000 actual VERIFIED civilians died in direct war action. That war was from the end of 1939 until 1945.
Now in that same war, over 24,000,000 military personnel died in direct relation to war actions.

So by your logic, if 15,000 - 20,000 civilians in two years is not acceptable or losing over 2000 soldiers in two years is not acceptable then I guess we should have let Hitler and Mussolini off with a free pass and let them do what they did to Europe and just turn a blind eye to the atrocities that were going on?

How can you, honestly, sleep at night?

Why don't you just admit that your hatred toward this administration is what's driving your outspokenness about this war.

It's not about who's in office.....it's about doing what is right and just.

Cindy Sheehan be damned....


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM

"Cindy Sheehan be damned...."

What an asshole statement to make. She lost a son there. How would YOU feel if it had been your son, Hub? HUH?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:54 PM

Bloody people seem to be so willing to send someone else's kid off to get killed. BULLSHIT, and stop this fucking war. It is a war for profit, not freedoms or any of the other fine-sounding words the Bush administration flings around. It's about CORPPORATE GREED. PERIOD!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:03 PM

Good posts Arne, refuting all the points made by our "warriors".

Unfortunately these pedants will learn nothing from your words. They have squirmed and wriggled ever since Bush prematurely proclaimed "Mission accomplished".

I'm sorry to say this, but you don't have to ask if these people value human life, to them if you're not British or American, you're barely human.

The points have all been made and the arguments won over Iraq, so let them prattle on attempting to muddy the water and obscure the important points

Iraq is important in that it proves we are led by criminals and liars who care nothing for human life, only power and money.

Even the "Joe Publics" have realised the truth, and it's only they who can stop a repitition...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:06 PM

Sorry Bruce...cross posted , agree with you 100%...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:32 PM

"It's about CORPPORATE GREED. PERIOD!"


Don't forget about the hundreds of thousands of missing Iraqis and the attempted genocide of the Kurds in the north with chemical weapons. Oh...and don't forget about the many mass graves filled with hundreds of bodies in each one. Oh...and don't forget the torture chambers found in the basements of the prisons. Oh...and don't forget about the WMD's and subsequent parts that helps in the making of those same WMD's that have been found. Oh..and don't forget about the constant shooting and missile locks on planes enforcing the no fly zone enacted by the UN. Those are all important parts too.

How convenient of you to always forget about the human suffering. I thought you guys thought of YOURSELVES as the poor man's champion.


What a shame.

Remember....it doesn't matter who's in charge. What matters is that you do things that are right and just.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:34 PM

Susu's hubby says, "If memory serves me right, our troops in Fallujah stumbled across scores of individuals and entire families that were wiped out due to the bad guys holding the town for so long. How quick you libs are to forget that little fact."

This isn't fact, its bullshit.

Nobody really knows what happened to the citizens of Fallujah except that they were caught in a cross fire that would never have happened if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:10 PM

Comparing Bush's Iraqi junket with the dynamics that were at work in World War II, or to equate a tin-pot dictator like Saddam Hussein with Adolph Hitler requires the sense of history of a gerbil. There is no comparison, and anyone who tries to makes such a claim is either incredibly stupid or totally disingenuous.

Susu's Hubby, you are a real piece of work!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:14 PM

Susu's Hubby: I see that the meaning of the above message has sailed smoothly over the top of your cute little pointed head.

Susu's Hubby [from before]: I've gone round and round with them about the 100,000 number they keep throwing around and just what it includes...

Which you did. You seem to have spent a fair amount of your bandwidth disputing the "100,000" figure (while also seeming unfairly to tar all liberals with actually claiming this number; can you say "straw man"?).

That's what I was responding to. I responded in a different place and with a different point to your rather strange claim about how "lib'ruls" are all railing about how Dubya did too much in Iraq and (unfairly or hypocritically in your perverse logic) too little for Katrina. Feel free to respond to what I said about this other point of yours at your pleasure.

I personally feel that 15-20K civilians is probably on the low side, and that the number of Iraqi combatants killed in the war is far less that 80K. And I'd dispute the number of supposed foreign insurgents killed. I have a hard time believing that it's anywhere near 80K for all your "baddies" combined (but the U.S. has refused to do "body counts" [until recently] so it's hard to know). If you have actual sources to back up those figures, out with them. Regardless, as I said, even your 15-20K number, if we want to take your low-ball estimate as a starting point for discussion, is a grievous total, and particularly for those who have lost loved ones, and even more so because this all was totally unnecessary.... And I'm really sorry that you can't see that.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:26 PM

Bobert,

" 100,000 Iraqi women, kids and old folks "

Already discussed and disproven. Think up a new lie.


"noone but God really knows if it's 50,000 or 100,000"

So, now you claim to be God, knowing all, or are your figures somehow blessed?




dianavan,

PM Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:22 PM - No idea where this came from. Not my comment- that was the report I was asked about.

So we should only believe Saddam?


Arne,

In 1941, Hitler was no threat to the US at all. So why did we bother fighting him? At least we were already at war with Saddam: he had attacked a country we had treaty obligations with, and then substantially violated the terms of the cease-fire.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:41 PM

Susu's Hubby: Another point that I think that needs to be made is that in WW2, over 30,000,000 actual VERIFIED civilians died in direct war action.

Don't know what you define as "direct war action" here (nor where you get your figures). In WWII somewhere around 60 million total died. Some 20 million Russians, with a substantial portion of these civilians, many who starved. Yes, it was horrific. Setting the ethical bar a little low, aren't you, in comparing the Russian (and other) dead from Hitler's war of aggression in WWII to Iraq, and saying we aren't nearly so bad?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:56 PM

Akenaton: Even the "Joe Publics" have realised the truth, and it's only they who can stop a repitition...Ake

This is true. Poll after poll shows the public awaking from a long slumber.

I truly think that the visceral sycophancy of many in the RW comes from a gnawing, subconscious realisation of the horror of what they have enabled and done, and a consequent willing refusal to allow that they could possibly have made such a colossal mistake. It takes a special and a strong type of person to admit to truly big mistakes; the guilt I imagine can seem almost suffocating, and there seems to be no atonement sufficient to wash the blood off ("Out, out, damn spot!"). But if they truly paid attention to the precepts of the deity-on-earth they most liekly sobscribe to (that is, the other ones besides the ones about rich men and needle's eyes, turning the other cheeks, and "thou shalt not kill"), maybe they'd see the path more clearly.

I am trying to help, and I am trying to be civil (difficult as it is at time in the face of such inhumanity [" Cindy Sheehan be damned...."]). I agree, it may be a Sisyphean task, but it is nonetheless the humane thing to do.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:11 PM

Susu's Hubby: Oh...and don't forget the torture chambers found in the basements of the prisons.

"Abu Ghriab: Now Open Under NEW Management!"

Susu's Hubby again: ...the attempted genocide of the Kurds in the north with chemical weapons...

Yeah, didn't bother Republicans all that much when it was happening. Human Rights Watch tried to get the Senate to put sanctions on Iraq for this, and Republicans in the Senate stymied this effort. And then you have Rumsfeld over there shaking hands with Saddam. Neat, eh?

And more lame tripe: ... and don't forget about the WMDs...

Ummm, there weren't any WoMDs. Didn't get your Hannity/Limbaugh talking points for the last year or so? There were "weapons of mass destruction program related activities", according to the "spinmeisters" flacking for the maladministration. Do try and keep up with the latest propaganda.

More shifting the goal posts: How convenient of you to always forget about the human suffering.

Never did. Just thought that making it worse is hardly a solution. Did you know that the U.S. reportedly put the kibosh on a plan to allow Saddam to go in exile? There were plenty of alternatives to a war of aggression, but the blinkered maladministration, egged on by the rosy-eyed ideologues of the Project for the New Global Empi... -- um, sorry, "American Century" - saw only the big aircraft-carrier-on-land in the heart of the oil-rich Middle East....

But are we back to the "nation-building-through-bullets" excuse again?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:17 PM

BB: Reread my post... I conceeded that there is no way of provin' or disprovin' the 100,000 figure... That's why I said "only God knows" how many... Think yer speed readin' or whatever it is is missing the essence of the post...

Susu's Hubby:

Like when have you ever posted anything about the genocide that has been going on in the Sudan??? If so concerened about it, why are you bogged down with something that happened 15 years ago and for which we have no control of yet ignore a current situation where we could make a difference??? SDeems a tad on the hypocrtical side to me, pal...

And other Bushites:

Can anyone tell me why if Saddam was the problem that Bush didn't just have him killed??? And don't give me that dribble about not knowin' how to get to him... That's bull... DanRather sat 5 fett from the man, gol dang it just two weeks before the invasion!!!

And also don't gibe me that dribble about it being against the law.... Like, hey, beats the heck outta killing tens upon thousands of innocent old folks, women and children...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:19 PM

BB: In 1941, Hitler was no threat to the US at all.

Oh, some would disagree with that assessment (for instance, merchant sailors, etc.).

But a few facts must intrude, dear Bruce:

1). We weren't at war with Hitler in most of 1941 (in fact, the chief opposition to helping England came from the American Bund and their friends in the RW of the Republican party, who were claiming that Hitler wasn't so bad or dangerous, if not going so far as to say we should toss our lot in with Hitler).

2). Germany declared war on the U.S.

HTH.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:51 PM

"kendall - PM
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:42 PM

If Saddam had had WMDs, he would have used them. Nuff said."

Not necessarily, he didn't use them in 1991 when he definitely did have them, so why would he use them in 2003? I'll tell you why because he was relying on twats like you to take the easy option and let him off the hook one more time. Unfortunately, he ran into somebody with a bit more guts and a hell of a lot more resolution. Shortly he will go on trial for the crimes he has committed, it will be a case of "Wheel the bastard in and lets determine just exactly how guilty he is" and I have no doubt that he will hang - damn sight better than he deserves, and I hope that this process takes place in public so that all who have suffered at his hands can see this truly evil man meet his just deserts. When that does happen he will know that he has been brought to book by one George W Bush.

By the bye, I note that that supercilious fuckwit Arne Langsetmo ducked the question asked of him and has not provided any evidence of Dr. Hans Blix declaring that Iraq possessed no WMD prior to 17th March 2003, Arne neither provides any evidence to counter what Dr. Hans Blix repeatedly told the UNSC regarding Iraqi co-operation. You Mr. Langsetmo are a Saddam apologist - are you by any chance Swedish or of Swedish descent? I certainly hope to hell that you are not Norwegian, or if you are then Quisling must have been a close relation and that the apple didn't fall too far from the tree. By your arguements and your reasoning you are a shoddy excuse for a human being. Peace at any price as long as I don't have to stir myself off my fat backside to do a damn thing to earn it. Thankfully, the peace, security and well being of nobody relies on decisions taken by the likes of you, if unfortunately they were we'd all be well and truly fucked, you clearly demonstrate that you haven't got the sense you were born with.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:02 PM

And as for Hitler's not being a threat to the U. S., for Pete's sake learn some history! Hitler was in command of the biggest, deadliest, and most aggressive war machine the world had ever seen, and he had glorious visions of world conquest. Saddam Hussein's ambitions were considerably more modest, but even if he had the mad dreams of someone like Hitler, that would hardly have mattered, because he didn't have the means nor a way to acquire them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:10 PM

And Teribus, you seem to have descended to a new low. Provided, of course, that you are the same Teribus who used to inhabit these threads. If you are, then you seem to have lost the capacity to present an argument worthy of consideration and have replaced it with mere volleys of invective. You render yourself no longer worthy of consideration.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:13 PM

T-Lite:

Ahhhh, how can Saddam go on trial in a country with no real consitution, no stability and an occupying army... Seems under these conditions that he is being put on trial at the request of the occupation force and being tried by whom????

Now, I'm not an international law scholar but there seems something very wrong about this trial... Hey, after the US leaves, should that evr happen and should there ever be a real Iraq government that represents the Iraqis then a trial would seem, ahhhhh, legal...

But I'd sho nuff like fir you, in yer own words, explain how this trial can be anything but a side show for Bush's PR team since there isn't a real governemnt in Iraq...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:22 PM

Military Strength   
Iraq               Country               Britain
Flag   
$1.3 Billion (pre-invasion) Yearly Military Expense $42,836.5 Million
NA                % of GNP             2.4%
18                Min. Enlist Age       16
6,547,762          Available Manpower    14,943,016
375,000 (possible) Active Military       113,900 (6,380 women)
280,000 (possible) Frontline Personnel   65,000
651                Aircraft             1,891
7,430             Armor                5,121
3,050             Artillery             455
5,210             Missile Defense       1,575
4,000             Infantry Support      3,236
      

So, Britain is no military threat to the US, either. And these numbers are AFTER the 14 years of sanctions to prevent Saddam from being a threat.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:28 PM

Arne,

"if you agree that Iraq was not a danger to the U.S. in 2002, then wouldn't you agree that the Iraq war was a "catastrophic success" (to use the words the maladministration actually used to describe it), and a completely bone-headed blunder?"

If YOU agree that Hitler was no threat to the US in 1940, then wouldn't you agree that the WWII was a "catastrophic success" and a completely bone-headed blunder?


I DO NOT AGREE that Iraq was not a potential danger- and I do know that we were in a state of war at the time we attacked Iraq- the cease-fire was conditional on the terms being complied with, which even the UN had declared that Saddam was not complying. It was not just his not kissing butt and serving tea- he was blocking the free access of the inspectors from doing their jobs. HOW can YOU state he had no programms when even the UN said they could not get enough information out of him to determine that? Should I mention that, if he did NOT have the programs, all he would have had to do was to stop trying to hide them?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:36 PM

Eh Bobert,

The Iraqi population has just voted for their constitution - FACT

The UN has just extended the mandate for the MNF to remain in Iraq until the end of 2006 - FACT

After the elections to be held on 15th December 2005 there will be a duly elected Goverment of Iraq - FACT

I know you hate those facts Bobert but like GWB winning two terms - you've just got to learn to live with it.

Oh nice to hear from you Don, how's the TAP pipeline coming along, have they laid so much as one joint of pipe yet? By the way Don you are as shakey and weak a student of History as Little Hawk, to wit - "Hitler was in command of the biggest, deadliest, and most aggressive war machine the world had ever seen" No he wasn't, in actual fact if Hitler hadn't acquired the armour he captured in Czechoslovakia he would not have been able to attack in the West. The advantage that the German armed forces had in 1939 lay in their command and control, not in the quality or number of their weapons. When Hitler launched his attack in the west in 1940 the British and the French had greater numbers of tanks, they had technically superior tanks in terms of design, they just didn't know how to use them. The British had far superior aircraft, but they were not used in close co-operation with ground forces, when the Luftewaffe came up against them over Southern England it was Britains superior command and control of those fighter defences that beat the German airforce even although the latter outnumbered the former by damn near six to one.

So Mr Firth before you start spouting a complete and utter load of crap, why don't you do a bit of homework and research what you are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 08:36 PM

"I thought you guys thought of YOURSELVES as the poor man's champion."

I put it on the live a few times each year. Believe that or not, as you choose. However, I won't sacrifice a kid on the altar of MY vanity, which seems to be what you are doing. Save you're pontificating bullshit. You should know better.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM

Yeah, they voted on a constitution, allright but they don't have a real governemnt in place... Oh sure, some folks would say they do but a governemnt holed up behind walls ain't like a real governemnt... And as fir the constitution, kinda tough to impliment it in the midst of a civil war... Don't ya' think???

Right now it's a document of hope by some folks but their ain't no real governemnt.... If so, then the US/UK could pull out tomorrow... Government implies more than just having a document... It involves, ahhhh, security and it involves being involved with infastructure situations, etc... It is evident that Iraq does not have a government able to govern... I think that seems to be very obvious...

Now, back to the Hans Blix... Whether he said it on the 17th or not 'er before it is releveant that he did say that Iarq was cooperatin' and he did say this, oh maybe a month before the 17th... He also said that prior to the 17th that he had had access to to the sites he wanted to inspect...

Yeah, go ahead and call me a "proven liar", T-Lite, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy 'cause I got a dat wrong...

Who cares...

It's all you have left in yer litttle arsenal now that the blood is very much on yer hands...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:12 PM

Security Council

4644th Meeting (AM)



SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN 'MATERIAL BREACH' OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)



Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

Recalls Repeated Warning of 'Serious Consequences' for Continued Violations


Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).



By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.



Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites. They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found.



The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm


These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.


..........
They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm


Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.



The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.



I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.



Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.


Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.


turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.



There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.



Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.



The Al Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.



During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.



These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.



In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.



Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.



Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.



UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may help.

To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq's monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews "in private", that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews, in Baghdad or abroad.

#@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

"France and others also seem to ignore a recent 173 page UN inspection team report. Four months after UN Resolution 1441 demanded Iraq's cooperative disarmament, the remaining uncertainties and probable violations are so numerous they are divided up into 29 clusters. Blix expresses hope at the U.N, but his document offers little. Iraq issued its fifth Full, Final, and Complete Declaration (FFCD) on bioweapons in 1997. Five FFCD's is oxymoronic lying, and there are still 40 pages on current BW uncertainties in the Blix report."

http://www.nd.edu/~dlindley/handouts/pyrrhicdiplomacy.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM

Peace:

About 2,000 carriage returns, Blank lines.

Terribus: "But the following every single person person in this world now knows for certain 100%:- Iraq now holds no WMD."

I am not 199 % sure. They were hidden and some were probably forgotten about. Hope someone other that the insurgents finds them first

"- Iraq is no longer pursuing a policy to acquire WMD"

The current government in Iraq is not but the insurgents definately want them.

"- Iraq now no longer is in a position to threaten the peace and stability of the region."

If we get it stabilized. Otherwise it is a festering boil.

"- Iraq no longer subsidises international terorist organisations"

No but insurgent support money flows in through Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Bobert:

Do you hate Christmas too? All you do is put everything down.
Git out yur skinnin' knife and gut this:
10 Nov 2005
Kurds Campaign Thanks U.S. for Liberation

www.newsmax.com
A group representing Kurdistan thanks America for liberating that nation from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship of terrorism.

"The Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan just want to say 'thank you for helping us win our freedom. Thank you for democracy. Thank you America."

The print and broadcast advertisements are sponsored by the Kurdistan Development Corporation, an organization created by the government of Kurdistan to encourage international investment.

The ad campaign began Monday in the United States with ads in The Wall Street Journal and on Fox News Channel. Ads begin airing Nov. 14 airing in Europe.

The group describes Kurdistan as a place "where peace and prosperity have reigned since liberation from Saddam Hussein."
Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, Chairman of the Kurdistan Development Corporation and Kurdistan's High Representative to the UK, says the commercials are necessary to counter the American media's largely negative coverage of Iraq.

"We feel the mainstream media," she tells Newsmax, "is focusing on the negative stories coming out of Iraq and very rarely highlighting the good news."

"We're not saying that the media doesn't tell the truth. They do tell the truth. There is violence. There is an insurgency. But it's not the whole truth, or the whole picture."

"The truth is that while there is violence," she continues, "there are big strides being taken towards democracy in Iraq, particularly in Kurdistan. There are vast sections of Iraq, and again particularly Kurdistan, where the region is safe, stable, and people are getting on with their lives, doing business, trying to build a future."

Indeed, not a single coalition soldier has died in Kurdistan since March 2003.

Rahman worries, however, about suggestions that the United States should pull out of Iraq.

"If people are saying that America should withdraw their troops now, that would be a catastrophe, not only for the people of Iraq but also for the Middle East and the wider intentional community and the United States," she says.

The current peace and prosperity is a welcome change from conditions under Saddam Hussein, who targeted the Kurds throughout his rule.

Among other atrocities, Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds, a majority of which were women and children.

Following the Gulf War in 1991, the United States and the United Kingdom established "no-fly zones" in northern Iraq to prevent continued bombing of Kurdistan by Saddam. Kurds ran a semi-autonomous government under the protection of the "no-fly zones."

Kurdistan President H.E. Masoud Barzani thanked President Bush for his dedication to Iraqi freedom in an Oct. 25 visit to the White House.
"It was a brave decision that you have made," Barzani told the president, "you have liberated a people from a dictatorial regime that has hurt a lot of people."

Rahman goes further, calling President Bush a "hero."

"The people of Kurdistan and the government of Kurdistan," she gushes, "admire President Bush's courage in fighting Saddam Hussein despite some of the doubts of America's international partners."

Rahman says there is no question that the decision to liberate Iraq was just.

"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant," she notes, "a dictator who committed genocide against the people of Kurdistan ... To get rid of someone like that, there should be no question."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:50 PM

"President Bush's courage in fighting Saddam Hussein"

Let's look at that one again.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:51 PM

All this wimmel wimmel about there was not a significan amount, He wasn't going to use them etc. is just backpedaling.

The anti-war, anti-Bush crowd said that there were NO WMDs in Iraq.

I think 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium is a significant amount. I am not a nuclear physycist but would think that would be enough to make several bombs.

Mebbe the 'ol Wes 'Ginny slide rule can calqlait it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:13 PM

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect..."

Hans Blix adreesing the UN Jan 27, 2003

Then, Bush countered with, "blah, blah, blah" and rattle4d sabres until the entire universe shook from his sabre rattlin'...

You all remember them days, 'er was you in a fog???

Yeah, verytime the inspectors would say good stuff about how things were going Bush would ratchet up his rhetoric and drown out what Hans Blix was trying' to say...

Hey!!! Wake up!!!!

You folks who think this didn't happen only need to Google in some stuff and get a refresher course...

What, do you think I made up the above quote??? Hey, it's public... Google in Hans Blix and you'll learn, or relearn, a number of things...

Oh sure, the folks here with blood on their hands will point out different things but, bottom line, Hans Blix said the Iraqi'a were cooperating... He also went on to say that he ahs assembled quite a diverse team of inspectors that was then "at the disposal of the Security Council"...

But, hey, if you believe some here, it weren't so... Might of fact some here will call me a liar for even bringin' these quotes into the Catbox??? Hmmmmmm???

They are quotes, folks.... Hey, I don't make them up... Yeah, Bush is accusin' folks who opposed the invasion of Iraq as tryin' to rewrite the reasons for the war...

No, it is Bush, not us, who is wearing out the eraser....

He stands up and tells the American people that Congress had the same intellegence he had???

This is and was a lie... And di he tell this lie 2 years ago, 2 months ago? No, he told it yesterday!!!! And it is a lie!!! Maybe one of you Bushheads would like to challenge me on this and call me the liar... Go ahead, make my day!!! Gonna get you a "proven liar" badge, like the kind that T-Jerk is handin' out, 'cept it will come from me... Yeah, challenge my statement that Bush lied yesterdfay... I dare you!!! Gotta badge waitin' for one and all...No short supply...

Bush lied yesterday!!!

Come on!!! Who's first to step to the plate????

T-Jerk, you want any of this???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:16 PM

Sorry, make that day before yesterday... Wee know how T-Jerk is a stickler fir details....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:49 PM

Ok Bobert, have you figgerd out how many tons of enriched uranium it takes to make a bomb?

It was only partially enriched so I guess they would have to use a centrifuge to enrich it more. They had the exact right type of high strength aluminum tube in Iraq to make a centrifuge out of. But it was supposedly for irrigation.

Guess they got all kinds of camels stompin' on ther irrigation tubing so it needs to be high strength to hold up under camel abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:07 PM

LOL, Duck... You are a trip... I would have thought that maybe you were a LH creation but he is off on a mountain top meditatin' and goovin' with his rocks... Ahhh, no, not his rocks... But rocks... Yeah, rocks...

(Shhhhhhh, did you know that LH talks to rocks???)

Okay, I might have had a casual conversation with a rock but never anything too lenghtly, mind you...

No, how much enriched U237 you gonna need??? I might make one myself seein' as they sell aluminum tubin' right down at Gilliam's Hardware...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:25 PM

Maybe you missed it but the "intelligent" people here are claiming the there were no significant amounts of WMD's found in Iraq. My question is how many nuclear bobmbs csn you make with 1.77 metric tons of partially enriched uranium?

Bein' one of the few people entrusted with the massive computational power of the Wes Ginny Slide Rule, you can tell us.

The extra strength aluminum tube to farther enrich it with was found in Iraq but accoring to Saddam it was for irrigation.

Maybe 1.77 tons of uranium is not technically a weapon in itself but I wouldn't want it in my basement workshop.

I don't knoew who LH is but he is welcome to do whatever he wants with his rocks except hurl them at me.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:41 PM

Actually, Duck, the problem is that the aluminum tubes found in Iraq weren't up to snuff fir centrifuges but more for anti-aircraft weaponry so it's good that Saddam didn't try to use them with his weak Uranium 'er he could have possibly blown up maybe part of one of his castles...

The Wes Ginny Slide Rule been on this one fir quite awhile now, er ever since the Bush folks gave in and admitted that the tubes weren't centrifuge material... Okay, just to cover my butt since TeriPrick is goin' 'round askin' everyone to verify their sources 'er be branded a "proven liar", Bush might not have admitted this himself but it has been admitted to... Google, if you'd like....

Ahhhh, LH is Little Hawk, alias God of Rocks... Okay, maybe not God of Rocks but Worshipper of Rocks....

BObert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:43 PM

"Maybe 1.77 tons of [low-enriched] uranium is not technically a weapon in itself but I wouldn't want it in my basement workshop."

It ain't enough to make a bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:55 PM

Now you have justified the intended purpose of the tubing but what do you think the Uranium was for?

I don't think that is the kind to use for a power plant but Iraq was building a nuclear power plant at one time, breeder reactor if I remeber right, but the Jews blew it away one night real sudden like and they didn't even warn Saddam. Didn't even splain what pre-emptive means.

The French probably still got a copy of the plans case Saddam wants another one when he gets off due to the fact that he had all of the lawyers killed.

Maybe thats why he was peelin off $250 grad for any family that could screw up one of their kids enough that they would suicide bomb Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 12:00 AM

There is NO question that Saddam was trying to make a nuclear weapon. Take that as a given. I do, and we're in disagreement about the war. The amount of nuclear crap floating around this world is friggin' incredible. Near to 50% of this World's reactors are dangerous--read unsafe. Hussein HAD weaopns that are dangerous. Sarin for sure--hell, he used it on his own people as well as on Iranians. Saddam was and is an evil sonuvabitch who deserves a very bad headache. Take THAT as a given, too.

However, the thread title is false. NO, they weren't.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:12 AM

Peace: I can't find your balls so you have none.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:39 AM

Why would a cocksucker be interested in balls?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:41 AM

On the other hand, a stupid cocksucker likely would.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:02 AM

Teribus: By the bye, I note that that supercilious fuckwit Arne Langsetmo ducked the question asked of him and has not provided any evidence of Dr. Hans Blix declaring that Iraq possessed no WMD prior to 17th March 2003....

We'll ignore your terrible table manners for the moment. I didn't duck the question. I pointed out that you moved the friggin' goalposts, and demanded a statement from "Dr. Hans Blix, prior to 17th March 2003, that clearly and unequivocally states that that Iraq possesed no WMD, that Iraq held no precursor chemicals to produce WMD, that Iraq had no programmes running aimed at producing WMD." While Blix was stating that it was looking more and more like Saddam didn't have any more WoMD, and was asking for a couple of months more to finish off his job, you're demanding that he sign his firstborn son over on a "clear and unequivocal state[ment]", when it took the U.S. guys a freakin' year, while occupying and having the run of the country, to conclude their survey only to find the same damn thing. Of course, it didn't help Blix any that the U.S. refused for quote some time to even give him information to check out, and now you're demaning that he give you a rock-clad guarantee after just a couple months of searching without any U.S. help at all. Sounds like you're setting him up for failure ... or you are afraid of what he might actually find. More to the point, it looks like that is what Dubya was really afraid of (and seemingly for good reason. But that hardly changes the fact that everything that Blix checked out showed that the U.S. 'intelligence' was wrong, and that there weren't any WoMD. And that's what Blix and his inspectors did say.

But this all also ignores the burden of proof: It is the duty of the proponent of a claim to produce the evidence, not the burden of the doubters to prove it false (and in particular, the proving of a negative is a much more difficult thing to do, so the default is usually to require the proof of the positive assertion). But that's what Blix did check. The U.S. claims. And the claims were "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". Seems that ought to be enough for rational people, particularly when coupled with a general survey and other checks that seemed to show that the programs had been destroyed or halted. Which Blix also reported.

teribus continues: Arne neither provides any evidence to counter what Dr. Hans Blix repeatedly told the UNSC regarding Iraqi co-operation.

No, I covered that garbage. Please state for the record that you think that the loss of 2000 U.S. soldiers is a fair price to slake your ire that Saddam didn't tiptoe while singing "I'm a teapot, short and stout" to make you think you have a bigger phallus than you have. As I said previously, Saddam's lack of "co-operation" in itself is hardly a casus belli to me. But then, I maintain some vestiges of humanity. But feel free to differ ... and then explain this interesting rationale for the war to Cindy Sheehan and a couple thousand other mothers. Hop to it, my man.

More Teribus schlock: You Mr. Langsetmo are a Saddam apologist - ...

Nope. OTOH, I don't expect of him different behaviour than I would of Dubya under similar circumstances. I don't apologise for the behaviour (nor the deaths that either have caused, Saddam and Dubya), but at least I understand human nature, and am not surprised by the behaviour we saw.

Teribus goes on: ... are you by any chance Swedish or of Swedish descent?

Why? Are you going to get into argumentum ad hominem? Or are you just a freakin' bigot?

More crap from Teribus: By your arguements and your reasoning you are a shoddy excuse for a human being.

My, my, my, am I chagrined.... You know, if I thought a bit less of you, Teribus, I might be inclined to say precisely the same about you. Tell you what, Teribus, when I gave a damn about what you< thin of my "arguement" [sic] and reasoning, I'll be sure that you're the first to know, OK?

Teribus [apparently trying totell me what I think]: Peace at any price as long as I don't have to stir myself off my fat backside to do a damn thing to earn it.

Ummm, nope. Never said any such thing. You seem to be infested with a pernicious infection of binary thinking. OTOH, could this be true:

"War at any price as long as I don't have to stir myself off my fat backside to do a damn thing to earn it."

Are you one of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders, Teribus? I'm willing to pay the price of the "peace" that I've argued for. Which is not just giving Saddam ... or that dictator in Uzbekistan ... or the African strongman that bought an audience with Dubya ... or D'Aubissinion, Allende, the Guatemalan junta, etc., etc. ... or Musharraf, for that matter. But are you willing yourself to go fight and die for Dubya's lies? Why aren't you over in Iraq, eh? You see, I accept that terrorism, like plane crashes, lightning, car accidents, random shootings, etc., is not defeatable, but can be reduced. I refuse to institute such measures or commit such horrors as make for a worse situation than the original problem. Cost-benefit, you know. Saddam was bad, but what we have is worse, which makes the war a bad move by any account, and certainly not worth the moral price we pay for instituting an agressive war of choice (and against international opinion), and the human and ethical crime we commit in killing thousands of civilians ourselves.... But that's just me, YMMV.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:06 AM

That proves you have no balls.

None were found.

I am not going to accept your claim that balls were found.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:09 AM

Teribus: Thankfully, the peace, security and well being of nobody relies on decisions taken by the likes of you, if unfortunately they were we'd all be well and truly fucked, you clearly demonstrate that you haven't got the sense you were born with.

Well, the security of the world relies on the likes of you, and the folks that you're busy making excuses for ("Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job..."), and sadly, most rational analysts say that we're in worse shape now than we were before, and going in the wrong direction. In fact, most of the U.S. population thinks we're on the wrong track too (newsflash for you, in case you just listen to Limbaugh and watch Faux Snooze). Say, where's Osama been Forgotten? Didn't hear Dubya mention him last Friday, strangely....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Buffy
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:15 AM

Guest, youre doing a heck of a job. Now zip your pants.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:45 AM

BB: Military Strength   
Iraq               Country               Britain

Hey BB, not sure what you thinks that proves, but how about
this category (which you strangely left out of the list): Nuclear submarines

Or maybe: H-bomb warheads

Or even: Aircraft carriers

Leaving out any pertinent information to slant your conclusion? Sounds like you're ready for a high position in the Dubya maladministration.....   ;-)

And just out of curiosity, why would you compare Iraq to Britain when wondering whether Iraq is/was a threat to the United States?

Better RW flacks, please....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:50 AM

BB: If YOU agree that Hitler was no threat to the US in 1940, then wouldn't you agree that the WWII was a "catastrophic success" and a completely bone-headed blunder?

You're circling Godwin's Law rather closely, BB.

But I never made any such claim, did I? Your "analogies" really need a little work. See if you can manage it.

But just a FYI, we won WWII.

As I pointed out, Germany declared war on us (and was attacking our shipping). Why you keep trying to equate WWII and Iraq is really beyond me.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 03:14 AM

BB: ... and I do know that we were in a state of war at the time we attacked Iraq...

To paraphrase another of more talent:

"There's a lot you know,
that really ain't so...."

I really don't gave a d*** whether you think that a "state of war" existed. What matters is what people that actually know about these kinds of things know.

BB again: ... he was blocking the free access of the inspectors from doing their jobs.

There's more you know that just ain't so. After some initial intransigence, the inspectors were allowed everywhere they wanted to go.

BB blathers on: Should I mention that, if he did NOT have the programs, all he would have had to do was to stop trying to hide them?

Probably not. Because he didn't have them, and he couldn't stop trying to hide them, any more than you can stop beating your wife.

Teribus: The Iraqi population has just voted for their constitution - FACT

With an amazing 99% "yes" vote of all eligible voters in some Sunni areas. Will wonders never cease?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 03:28 AM

Geodick,

Your logic reminds me of something from Mark Twain. I can't recall it verbatim, but this'll be close enough I think.

Fellow was telling a tale about a buffalo climbing a tree. One of the listeners said, "Hey, buffalos can't climb trees!" The narrator of the story queried, "Have you ever seen a buffalo climb a tree?" Fellow replied, "No." Narrator said, "Well then, how do you know they can't?"

Twain at least knew he was being funny.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:26 AM

Well GUEST 13 Nov 05 - 02:09 AM an independent study commissioned by the UN came out recently with findings that run counter to your arguement. It has come to the conclusion that since 1998 the world has become a safer place (even taking into account Iraq and Darfur) we are 40% less likely to experience a war and 60% less likely to encounter genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:14 AM

The thread premise is drivel. As others have pointed out, if it were true, Bush and his minions would be constantly trumpeting it.

But they're not. Haven't noticed a special press conference or Bush speech detailing this new development. I wonder why.

So save your exclamation marks for something of significance, and preferably plausible.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:38 AM

Arne..Game set and match to you, whoever you are!!

Concise and accurate replies based on how you most intelligent people see the problem.
Real ideas versus skewed and distorted facts .

Well done ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 12:53 PM

Dr. Hans Blix Reporting to the UNSC - 14th February 2003

"Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination, under UNSCOM and IAEA supervision, of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete, when inspectors were withdrawn almost 8 years later at the end of 1998.
If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if and I quote "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

Please note the last part of the last sentence - UNMOVIC was not at this time receiving the co-operation required - Anybody doubt that take it up with the man who wrote the report - Hans Blix.

Dr. Hans Blix Reporting to UNSC 27th January 2003

"The environment has been workable. Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

In this updating, I'm bound, however, to register some problems. The first are related to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.

As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our requests. I hope this attitude will change.

Another air operation problem, which was so during our recent talks in Baghdad, concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours.

This would have raised a safety problem.

The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraqi minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.

I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of an intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites. The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. Inspectors went without U.N. insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.

Shortly thereafter, we received protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not.

Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq with initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional, and at the same time correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint, they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.

The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can."

References to Iraqi failure to provide full and pro-active co-operation run as a consistant theme throughout Blix's reports to the Security Council - Now I believed what that man was saying at the time as did a number of others, If Arne has further information from a better source all well and good let him present it. In his Report to UNSC of 6th March 2003 Dr. Hans Blix specifically stated that UNMOVIC COULD NOT rule out the possibility that Iraq WMD or facilities to produce them.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:59 PM

Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner on this, Teribus, but yesterday afternoon and evening, we had guests.

Anyway—

I'm not going to recite the facts of the entire Second World War for your enlightenment and edification, but there are a few highly questionable assertions in your attempt to besmirch my rather extensive and detailed knowledge of history.

Beginning in 1935 and in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler began building up the military power of Germany, particularly the Wehrmacht (tank corps) and the Luftwaffe (air force). German Tiger tanks, with their 88 mm. guns, great numbers of which were built between 1935 and 1938, were the most modern form of "cavalry" in existence. Germany built vast fleets of them.   Polish and Czechoslovakian cavalry at the time consisted mostly of horses! The Panzer divisions and the Luftwaffe (flights of Stuka dive bombers sufficient in numbers to darken the skies, with Messerschmitt 109s, one of the most modern fighter planes in the world at the time, flying cover should there be any interceptors to attempt resistance, even though the Stukas themselves could double quite well as fighters). By 1938, the Luftwaffe had become the most powerful air force in the world. The Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe were considered by Hitler's generals to be the essential parts of the new "blitzkrieg" style of war.

If you wish, I can supply you with enough links and bibliographic sources to keep you busy until sometime next April.

Before I'll seriously consider your assertion that the British and the French had superior numbers of tanks prior to the outbreak of the war, you're going to have to present me with some pretty damned authoritative—and verifiable—figures. Not to mention the condition of that war materiel. A mere fifty brand new Tiger tanks are going to have a considerable advantage over a thousand World War I machines rusting out in a junkyard. But I'm pretty sure even that was not the situation that prevailed.

In contrast to sheer numbers and quality of aircraft in the Luftwaffe, the RAF, which came into existence in 1918, didn't begin to build up its forces until war on the Continent broke out with Germany's invasion of Poland. Spitfires and Hurricanes were vastly outnumbered by the planes of the Luftwaffe, and as you acknowledge, in the Battle of Britain it was not superior numbers, but the skill and determination of the RAF pilots that won the day.

Incidentally, military firearms were in short supply in Britain at the outbreak of the war. There were only fifty (that's 50—five-oh!) Bren light machine guns in the British Isles at the time. This is indicative of why the "lend-lease" program was so essential.

At the time of the outbreak of WWII, no nation (with the possible exception of Japan, but even that is doubtful) had a more powerful war machine than Germany did.

I was a kid during World War II (were you even born yet?) and I followed the news avidly. I'm not particularly a WWII buff, but I have a fairly extensive library on it, and I'm able to relate what I read to what I remember as going on at the time. So don't give me any crock about me not knowing my history. Your attempts at refutation merely point up the vast gaps in your own knowledge.

And regarding the TAP pipeline of late, it's no wonder Unocal has backed out of the deal. There has been much visiting and searching among the various countries involved, with nobody making much in the way of definite decisions. Not to mention the fact that sometimes it's not real bright to try to run a natural gas pipeline through an area where there's a war going on. Here are a couple of fairly recent stories on the development—or lack thereof—of the pipeline. HITHER and THITHER

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 03:55 PM

But also from the same report that T-Lite has quoted from Hans Blix remarks to the Security Council:

" Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC. The most imporatnt point to make as that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had greatn help in building u the infastructur of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable..."

And that is followed with several papragarphs deatiling varuious inpsection details such at timing, holidays, capabilities...

It is his words "The most important piont to make..." I think speaks volumes about Hans Blix's perception that the inpections were going just fine...

But when I ask the question here in Mudcat, "Hey, what was the hurry in invading Iraq", I am met with the usal repsonses from the usual suspects who somehow either weren't paying attention in Januart, 2003, or believe evetrything that Bush tells them to believe...

BTW, Bush outright lied on Friday in makin' the claiom that Congress had the same intellegence that he had... That was not true but I'm sure that one of the Bush apologists will step forward with some long cut 'n paste and I hope they do 'cause the other barrel is loaded and I got my finger on the trigger so "Make my day!!!".....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 03:56 PM

Arne,

You make unsupported statements. If you want to make up facts, try to at least have a possible refernce that someone, somewhere might think that you are right.

""There's a lot you know,
that really ain't so...."

I really don't gave a d*** whether you think that a "state of war" existed. What matters is what people that actually know about these kinds of things know."


A perfect quote- so why should I believe anyt of your lies, when you do not believe the UN reports?


Bobert,

U-235 , please, or plutonuium. Some of us know how easy it is to make a bomb, once you have the materials. He had the materials, in violation of the cease-fire terms and the UN resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 04:13 PM

Ake,

"The points have all been made and the arguments won over Iraq"

So, having declared your viewpoint the only valid one, you will not bother to consider any facts that might prove you wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 04:17 PM

Careful, Don...you gotta check your reference books. You are not accurate in much of what you say regarding German equipment, etc...

There were NO German Tiger tanks built between 1935 and 1938, and none with 88mm guns either. The Germans were equipped with the following types of tanks when the Battle of france occurred:

Panzer I - a very small tank that mounted a machine gun. These proved almost useless except for reconaissance or for engaging infantry. They were being phased out after the conclusion of the Polish campaign, but a few were still in use against the French and English.

Panzer II - a rather small scout tank with a machine gun and a 20 mm cannon. Reasonably good general purpose light tank, but outclassed
by most French and English tanks.

Panzer 35T - a rather good Czech medium tank, with a 37 mm gun, I think. It was roughly comparable to a Panzer III.

Panzer 38T - a similar, but more advanced Czech medium tank, again with a 37 mm gun. Good vehicle for the time.

(You see, the Czechs did indeed have tanks, plenty of them, and good tanks in 1938. The Germans put those same tanks heavily to use in Poland, in France and the Low Countries, in Russia, the Balkans, and North Africa. Your assertion that the Czechs had "mostly horses as cavalry" is not correct. The Czechs did have some horse cavalry, yes. So did the Germans, the Poles, the Russians, the Italians...hell, almost every did. Did you know that the Poles ALSO had a very good tank in 1939? It was called the 7TP, and it was pretty much the equal of most German tanks of the time. The Poles had relatively few of those tanks, however, and German air superiority proved well able to deal with them.)

(The Czechs also had the 88 mm flak gun in 1938...that's where the Germans got it! It was of Czech manufacture. It is estimated that more Allied personnel were killed by the 88mm in 1939-45 gun than by any other comparable heavy weapon.)

Panzer III - a darned good medium tank for 1940, it usually mounted a 37 mm gun, which was typical at that time. It performed excellently, and went on to be the main tank in further campaigns in the Balkans and in Russia. It was secondary in armour and fighting power to the French Char I Bis heavy tank and the British Matilda. The French Char I Bis was probably the most formidable tank in the world in 1940, with the possible exception of the Russian KV-1 tanks of the same time period.

Panzer IV - Another darned good medium tank. In 1940 it was armed as an assault vehicle, with a short-barrelled 75 mm gun. This was a gun intended to fire mostly high explosive rounds against infantry and fortifications, which it was very good at. The short barrel meant a low velocity shell, which meant it wasn't so suitable for firing armour-piercing rounds, though it could, theoretically.

The Germans DID have some 88 mm guns in 1940. Flak guns. They were the World's most deadly gun of that type at the time, and could be towed behind a halftrack and set up. These were the guns that stopped British Matilda tanks in a British counterattack at Arras, I believe it was. The Matilda was so heavily armoured that virtually nothing but an 88 mm gun could knock it out. German tanks were almost helpless against Matildas at the time. The Germans were versatile enough that they quickly realized that a flak gun could be used as an antitank gun, and they did so. This enabled them to win many, many battles in Europe and North Africa.

The first German Tiger tanks, mounting this same 88 mm gun, did not appear in combat until 1942, when the Tiger I was introduced. It was a response to the much heavier Russian tanks that the Germans had encountered in Russia...namely the T-34 and the KV-1 and KV-2. Those tanks were much tougher than their German counterparts, until the Tiger I arrived on the battlefield.

Teribus is entirely correct that the British and French outnumbered the Germans in tanks in 1940 and had superior tanks on the whole. They did indeed. They had Somua 35's, Char I Bis, and Matilda tanks that were superior to German tanks. What they did not have was a superior air force, and most of all they did not have a modern strategy to match the German blitzkrieg tactics. They were totally outthought by the Germans.

The Germans used far superior tactics of breakthrough and encirclement, and they coordinated their air force with their ground forces in a far more efficient way. That proved decisive. They also massed their tanks in heavy forces for breakthrough purposes, while the French, on the whole, misused the excellent tanks they had by spreading them around piecemeal like mobile artillery.

On paper, France had the best-equipped ground force in western Europe in 1940. It was crippled by using World War I tactical thinking, and by being very poorly organized. They also had no radar to provide early warning. That allowed intial German air attacks to be very effective.

England HAD good radar, and that was the crucial factor in their ability to stave off the Luftwaffe in 1940. You say that the British won the Battle of Britain through superior "skill and determination". I doubt that. My impression is that the Germans and British were equally skillful at the time. In fact the German fighter corps was probably MORE skillful in the initial stages, because they had an elite group of fighter pilots with plenty of prior experience fighting over Spain, Poland, the Low Countries, and France. Those pilots generally racked up higher kill scores than their British counterparts at the time.

The Germans faced numerous disadvantages over England.

1. Their Messerschmitt 109s had too short a combat range to penetrate deeply into the UK or to stay there very long once in combat. They could barely reach as far as over London. This proved to be an insoluble problem for the Germans, as their bombers desperately needed those Me 109s to protect them.

2. The other German fighter, the Me 110 twin-engine plane, proved too unmaneuverable to dogfight Spitfires and Hurricanes. It was a dead duck over England. This came as a real shock to the Germans.

3. The famed Stukas were likewise dead ducks over England. They were very easy to shoot down with a modern fighter. They could only survive under conditions of air superiority, and the Germans were never able to achieve that over England.

4. The larger German bombers were all good machines, but they needed fighter escort. As mentioned before, the Me 109s were greatly limited in their escort ability, due to their short range.

5. The British radar allowed them to gauge an appropriate response to each situation...avoid if the odds are too high...pounce when the odds are good. The Germans didn't have that luxury. They were flying blind.

6. Every German pilot who parachuted over England became a prisoner. Every British pilot who parachuted got to fight again. Some pilots parachuted many times, and got to fight again. A trained pilot is far more valuable than an airplane.

7. The Germans kept changing their minds about what objective to go after. First they went after channel shipping. Then they had a brief go at knocking out the radar stations (unsuccessful for the most part). Then they decided to go after RAF airfields and airplane factories (the airfields in particular...that was the right decision).

8. Then Hitler got mad because the British bombed Berlin, and he ordered the Luftwaffe to bomb London and keep bombing it. That lost them the Battle! Had they simply kept on stubbornly attacking the British airfields, which was the right move to make, they would almost certainly have broken the strength of the RAF by autumn, and an invasion could have gone forward.

A lot of different factors combined to save England. The British and German pilots both fought with superb skill and dedication. There is no reason to underestimate either of them in that regard. It is mere propaganda to state that the British won because of superior skill and determination. Hell, everyone gave it their utmost. It was a poker game, and the Germans didn't play the winning combination, that's all.

I'll tell you where the Germans were way superior to the British in 1940: their army. And why? Because it was using more modern tactics. If the Germans had ever gotten that army ashore in England, they would have been unstoppable.

The Germans many times defeated forces that outnumbered them in the early war years, and many times defeated forces that had superior tanks too...the Russians certainly did. How they did it was with far better tactics, and more experienced troops. They out-generaled the opposition.

The notion that they had this huge war machine that outnumbered and outgunned everyone else is just total, absolute nonsense, and it's the remainder of some misleading propaganda that was used to explain away catastrophic defeats suffered by the Allies in the early years of the war.

Remember all the hoopla about the Bismark? Well, the Bismark was, relatively speaking, a rather good battleship, but it wasn't tremendously superior to other ships in its general class at the time. It was roughly equivalent to most modern battleships in 1941. It had 15" guns. So did most British battleships. It had excellent belt armour, but not so good deck and upperworks armour. It had a quirky radar system, probably not as good as British radar.

You could say it earned about a 7 out of 10 for WWII battleships. Respectable, but not earth-skaking.

Yet Allied propaganda blew the Bismark up into an almost unstoppable monster, a terrifying leviathan stalking the ocean! Well...they liked to dramatize things, didn't they? And they had to explain the loss of HMS Hood somehow to a grieving nation...

The thing that really sucks about it, Don, is here I am defending Teribus's points! Ay-yi-yi...it's tough being a WWII history nerd.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: pdq
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 04:54 PM

Don't mess with Little Hawk when it comes to history! Or Bob Dylan lyrics...

Actually, the outcome of WWII hinged on three inventions: the atomic bomb, radar, and the proximity fuse. The US and England were ahead in developement of all three. The A-bomb is widely discussed, here is a little about the other two inventions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WILLIAM WEBSTER HANSEN
Credited with inventing Klystron.
"Born 27 May 1909; died 23 May 1949.
American physicist who contributed to the development of radar and is regarded as the founder of microwave technology. He developed the klystron, a vacuum tube essential to radar technology (1937). Based on amplitude modulation of an electron beam, rather than on resonant circuits of coils and condensers, it permits the generation of powerful and stable high-frequency oscillations. It revolutionized high-energy physics and microwave research and led to airborne radar. The klystron also has been used in satellite communications, airplane and missile guidance systems, and telephone and television transmission. After WW II, working with three graduate students, Hansen demonstrated the first 4.5 MeV linear accelerator in 1947."

The cavity magnetron was the other major building block to the radar. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the proximity fuse...
"The Crosley Corporation was one of five companies that assembled proximity fuzes. A total of eighty-seven different firms using one hundred ten factories were engaged in some phase of production work. Crosley's involvement began in late October 1941 when they were contacted by the Bureau of Ordnance and told that they would be contacted later that month concerning a "top secret, top priority" project. Lewis M. Clement, Crosley's vice-president in charge of Engineering, recalled that Crosley had been selected because they had the required background in electrical and mechanical engineering and in mass production. The letter of intent from the Navy came in late November 1941 and a contract for 500 fuzes in December. The first accepted fuzes came from the production line in September 1942. On January 5,1943 Lt. "Red" Cochrane, commanding the aft 5" battery on the light cruiser Helena, shot down a Japanese Val dive-bomber with the second of three salvos of VT-fuzed shells, near Guadalcanal. The fuzes were manufactured by the Crosley Corporation and this was the first kill of enemy aircraft.

Although primarily a supplier to the Navy for use in the Pacific and the Mediterranean theaters, Crosley fuzes were used with great success by the British against the V-1 buzz bomb, by the U.S. Army on the European continent in the defense of Antwerp against V-1 attacks and in the Battle of the Bulge.

In a post war interview, Lewis Crosley said that fuze production reached sixteen thousand five hundred units per day. The Crosley Corporation employed ten thousand people and worked around the clock, seven days a week. Mr. Crosley said, "We enlarged until . . . we were the largest employer and produced more than anybody in Cincinnati, including any of the other big companies located in Cincinnati at that time. We had some very, very secret and wonderful products that we produced in volume for the Armed Forces and we got a lot of credit for doing it." Bureau of Ordnance figures show that Crosley produced 5,205,913, or 24%, of the slightly more than twenty-two million proximity fuzes manufactured during the war.

The importance of the proximity fuze to the successful outcome of the Second World War is best stated by those who witnessed it's effectiveness.

James V. Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy said, "The proximity fuze has helped blaze the trail to Japan. Without the protection this ingenious device has given the surface ships of the Fleet, our westward push could not have been so swift and the cost in men and ships would have been immeasurably greater."

Prime Minister, Winston S. Churchill was quoted with "These so-called proximity fuzes, made in the United States.., proved potent against the small unmanned aircraft (V-1) with which we were assailed in 1944."

And Commanding General of the Third Army, George S. Patton said, "The funny fuze won the Battle of the Bulge for us. I think that when all armies get this shell we will have to devise some new method of warfare."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 05:01 PM

"Actually, the outcome of WWII hinged on three inventions:"

Much of the outcome also hinged on Enigma and the 'ultra secret'.

Too long to go into. Those who know about it will understand. Those who don't can look up Enigma as a code and the subsequent ramifications of the code having been 'broken' without the knowledge of the Nazis.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 05:35 PM

Yes, breaking the Enigma codes was crucial. The Japanese received a tremendous defeat at Midway also, because the USA had broken their military codes, and knew they were coming. So the Allies won the war in a technical research sense, and in an intelligence sense. The Allies also had the benefit of much greater production capacity, particularly on the part of the USA, which was protected by two huge oceans from either bombing or invasion threat.

Here are the technical areas the Germans did better in during the war:

88 mm Flak gun - a most deadly weapon, acquired from the Czechs.

Most formidable tanks after 1942 - such as the Tiger I, Panther, and Tiger II.

Me 109 - all round best fighter in the early going (although the Spitfire could match it).

Fw-190 - all round best fighter when it first came out (soon matched or maybe even surpassed, however, by various Allied fighters such as later Spitfires, P-47s, Mustangs).

jet aircraft - they were well ahead in that area, with the extraordinary Me 262 jet fighter.

rockets and ballistic missiles - they led the world in rocket development, but only armed with conventional explosive warheads. This caused some trouble to the Allies, but was not decisive in any way.

Type XXI U-Boat - A very advanced sub, but only a handful of them were in service during the last days of the war, so they had no discernable effect on the course of events.

The Germans had a tendency to scatter their efforts in too many directions at once, thus losing effectiveness overall. This was as true of their military strategy as it was of their scientific and military research and development efforts.

And here are some areas where the Japanese were ahead:

Zero fighter - best fighter in the Pacific in late '41 through '42. Best carrier-based fighter in the world at the time.

torpeoes - they definitely had the world's fastest, hardest hitting, and best torpedoes. This won them many naval battles.

expertise in night fighting - The Japanese navy was well trained in night attacks, and it served them well in 1942.

cruisers - the Japanese heavy cruisers, armed with Long Lance torpedoes, were the world's most effective cruiser force up to the end of the Guadalcanal campaign.

elite air and naval crews - The Japanese personnel at the beginning of WWII had the benefit of the world's most rigorous training, combined with much battle experience in China. This made them extremely effective. Most of these veteran crews, particularly the aircrews, were dead by the end of 1942, and it was utterly beyond the capability of Japanese training facilities to adequately replace them. From that point on, the US Navy inflicted huge casualties on the inexperienced Japanese replacements at battles such as the "Marianas Turkey Shoot".

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: pdq
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 05:53 PM

When it comes to codes...

                                              color me purple

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:37 PM

Saved me a bit of work there LH - many thanks

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:50 PM

Bruce, you and I have discussed this many times.
What you imagine to be facts, I do not.
Why waste time and energy on going over and over unverifiable assertions.

I firmly believe that the USA/UK had decided to go to war in 2002.
Based on this opinion, whether Saddam was complying or not becomes irrelevant.   The case for war was a deliberate lie.

More importantly, the war is perceived by a large majority worldwide to have been based on lies. That is what really matters, public perception; not a few arseholes arguing on an internet forum.

Every time another "joe public" thinks "my God, my govt lied to me", freedom moves one step closer...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:52 PM

Very well, Little Hawk, I tentatively bow to your apparently thorough information. I know I'm a bit fuzzy on which models of what were made when. However, I have much of this informantion in my library, so I will be rummaging through to check on a lot of this.

And Teribus, don't get too smug yet.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:09 PM

Hey Don,

Please don't attempt to recite any facts in relation to the Second World War, you'll only suceed in embarassing yourself.

Your rather extensive and detailed knowledge of history, exists only as a figment of your own imagination, doesn't need me to besmirch it, you do a pretty good job of that on your own.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:14 PM

Don is one bright cookie, IMO.

So much of this dates to the Battle of Malvian Bridge and Constantine's defeat of Maxentius. Gee, ain't history fun?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:26 PM

As I said, don't get too smug.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:20 PM

Gleaned from a history web site:

"On September 1st., 1939, 1.8 million German troops invaded Poland on three fronts; East Prussia in the north, Germany in the west and Slovakia in the south. They had 2600 tanks against the Polish 180, and over 2000 aircraft against the Polish 420. Their "Blitzkrieg" tactics, coupled with their bombing of defenceless towns and refugees, had never been seen before and, at first, caught the Poles off-guard. By September 14th. Warsaw was surrounded. At this stage the poles reacted, holding off the Germans at Kutno and regrouping behind the Wisla (Vistula) and Bzura rivers. Although Britain and France declared war on September 3rd. the Poles received no help - yet it had been agreed that the Poles should fight a defensive campaign for only 2 weeks during which time the Allies could get their forces together and attack from the west."

Now, 1.8 million German troops, 2600 tanks, and 2000 aircraft, all launched in a blitzkrieg against one country sounds like a pretty substantial war machine to me. Perhaps not by modern standards, but. . . .

At that time, could any other country mount an assault like that?

If Germany did not have the biggest, then it most certainly did have the deadliest and most aggressive war machine, and headed by a man whose goal was no less than conquest of the entire globe (that I can substantiate quite easily if you insist).

For a little refresher, you might take a look at THIS.

So once again I say, don't get too smug. When it comes to dishing crap, you are definitely in the lead.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:29 PM

Gentlemen, we are retelling the war, not reliving it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:41 PM

Hmmmmmm? Wonder how this thread has gotten highjacked with folks talkin' 'bout 60 year old tanks???

The rest of the world is talkin' 'bout Iraq???

Must have missed something here...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:42 PM

Teribus, this little contretemp started in response to Susu's Hubby trying to equate the potential world threat of Saddam Hussein to that posed by Adolf Hitler. I responded by stating that that was ridiculous (which it is) and commented that Hitler had at his disposal "the biggest, deadliest, and most aggressive war machine the world had ever seen." That's when you accused me of being a purveyor of crap. Granted, my remembrance of details of such things as when the 88 mm. was first mounted on German tanks was not accurate (amended by Little Hawk, and I have nothing against being corrected when I am in error), but the statement holds, as substantiated just above.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:49 PM

I can't understand why so many people still believe George W. Bush. The mountain of evidence says he lied and is still lying. On top of that, Katrina has showed him up for the incompetent he is. Where is he getting all that money from that he is spending in Iraq? Is he borrowing it from the fat cats for whom he cleaned out the treasury with his obscene tax give away?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:50 PM

Cross posted. Right you are, gentlemen. I must acknowledge Teribus' hit, a palpable hit. He managed to sucker me away from the main subject of his thread with one of his Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Now let us return to our regular broadcast.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:59 PM

'"the biggest, deadliest, and most aggressive war machine the world had ever seen."'

I agree with that, but would like to add something to it: What Hitler had was the initiative and from that he developed tempo.

The notion of tempo is overlooked often because we describe history as a series of 'connected' events. I will try to explain.

If I am fighting with someone--physically fighting--one of the things I need is tempo, an understanding of HIS tempo and the skill to interrupt it long enough to enforce my will at a time of my choosing. A move that does that will seem to be a 'move'. Fact is, it is a convergence of the aforementioned.

People misunderstood Hitler's complete lack of regard for treaties. They misunderstood his intentions. Subsequently, they could not respond in either a timely or an effective fashion. This can be demonstrated on a less complex scale. Years back when I seemed to get myself in trouble frequently, I had three folks approach me with what I thought were bad intentions. I stood with my arms at my sides and my hands open. Running was not an option because I had a very bad hip at the time--it was eventually replaced. Anyway, what kinda flashed through my head was a Clauswitz and his book, "On War". All I could think at the time was that my momma's eldest son was gonna need medical help if he didn't do something. When humour failed, I gave one fellow a quick punch in the stones, another a faceful of fingers and the third indicated that he didn't wish to be involved. I was able to walk away, and I did so happy with not having to hurt him.

Timing and tempo. If you let your opponent(s) have the initiative, you will be a long tome winning the fight--if at all, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:00 PM

PS

I no longer involve myself in that type of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:03 PM

Of course, Don...

T-Lite loves the attack but ain't too good on the defensive... Heck, next thing you know he'll have you arguin' over how amny elepahnts Hannibal tried to get thru the Alps...

WMD: Weapon of Mass Distraction...

Keep him in the middle of the ring... He ain't all that scarey now that he has blood on his hands...

Yeah, he'll try to divert attention onto others when it's his narrow mindedness a couple years ago now has him callin' folks "fu*ks* if they don't agree with him... Next thing ya know he'' blame my bad speelin' 'er typin' on why Bush invaded Iraq-mire???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:27 PM

"WMDs Found in Iraq Nov 9, 2005"

That's right! They found a guy named Walter Marvin Dimplesthwaite,
and a guy named Wibur Moosejaw Dezenclewicz -- two WMD's.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:35 PM

Well, I have both bleach and ammonia where I live. Hope I don't get busted because combined they can make a very obnoxious gas.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:55 AM

Bush's own people are admitting "we were wrong" about WMD's in Iraq. article here.

This is a funny article, if funny can be defined as mistakes that cost the lives of thousands of people. In this article, Sen. John McKain defends the decision to invade Iraq by stating that the intelligence the U.S. received regarding WMDs in Iraq was widely avalable to other countries as well (he mentions France and Russia) and he intimates that the same conclusion, based on the intelligence, was reached by all countries, i.e. there were WMDs in Iraq.

Towards the end of the article, there is a reference made to intelligence gathered on the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, and we should believe these as well, because they are based on "international consensus."

On another note, if the Bush Administration is admitting "we were wrong" about WMDs in Iraq, and WMDs in Iraq is supposedly the reason we invaded, then is there is no longer a reason for us to occupy that country? Bush's Veterans Day speech has shifted the justification for invading Iraq, and, by extension, occupying that country by claiming it was fast becoming the central front for the terrorists.

I wish they'd get make up their mind. Oh wait, they already have. The real reason is because Iraq is sitting on top of a motherlode of oil.

As far as Osama bin Forgotten - it wouldn't surprise me if he were found sipping pomegranite juice poolside at the home of one of his rich relatives in Saudi Arabia. Satellites can read the license plates off cars from their lofty orbits but they can't find one exceptionally tall Arab wandering around in thedesert with a dialysis machine.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:01 AM

From the link above (good eye, GUEST):

About the Iraq War:

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion,'' McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation.''

About what's comin' up:

"Asked why people should believe U.S. claims about the nuclear plans of Iran given the failure of intelligence about Iraq, Hadley said there has been international consensus about Iran."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:04 AM

So, are the same group of folks who got it wrong in the first place gonna get it wrong in the second place, too?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:10 AM

..like they said about Nixon, "would you buy a used car from this man?"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:15 AM

And how many kids will die for it? And how much money will Halliburton make? And why do I feel like puking?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:15 AM

I hear that, GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:44 AM

Source for the Governments of all 15 countries who sat on the UN Security Council at the time UNSC Resolution 1441 was tabled and unanimously accepted was the UNSCOM Report of January 1999. That report stated that Iraq might have, stockpiles of CW and BW agents, munitions and precursor chemicals, it referred to the possibility of these items existing because according to Iraqi records in their possession these items appreared to be unaccounted for. The source stating that Iraq possessed WMD was not George W Bush, or Tony Blair. The intelligence services and advisors of both evaluated the what information they had and advised accordingly. Post-9/11 US most of those doing this evaluation had been doing so for a number of years for the previous administration.

UNSC Resolution 1441 did not solely concern itself with Iraq's possible possession of WMD, it addressed ALL the outstanding matters relating to Iraq from the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. So no goal posts moved, what the media tended to concentrate on at any given time is entirely their business, that business being the selling of their newspapers, it certainly is not targeted at providing the general public with balanced and informed opinion.

The MNF remains in Iraq at the request of the elected interim Iraqi Government and under the mandate of the United Nations, which oddly enough has just been extended until the end of 2006 if required. On 15th December the population of Iraq will elect a Government. If that Government immediately states that the troops of the MNF are no longer welcome in Iraq, those troops will be immediately withdrawn.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:49 AM

Ake,

"What you imagine to be facts, I do not."

And what YOU believe to be facts I see no evidence for.



"Why waste time and energy on going over and over unverifiable assertions."

SO, I shall ignore all further unsupported statements that you make.



"I firmly believe that the USA/UK had decided to go to war in 2002."

I agree: You believe this.



"Based on this opinion, whether Saddam was complying or not becomes irrelevant."

Since you base your decision on your belief, rather than the facts, you are correct that all else is irrelevant.





"The case for war was a deliberate lie."

You have failed to show, IMO, that it was either a lie, or deliberate.




Teribus,

I posted UNR 1441 and Blix's report on this thread, but it appears that many of the posters here do not bother to read any justification for something they have already decided is incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 09:53 AM

Beardebruce:
Most of us dreaded peaceniks have been campaigning against US-supported tyrannies since we were just out of diapers, while most of you war supporters are johhny-come-damn-latelies to humanitarian causes. Don't lecture me about demanding that Saddam honor UN resolutions. Did you insist that the USA honor the UN's demand that we NOT invade Iraq. Hypocrisy squared buddy.

Now, you answer my question.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:05 AM

GUEST,TIA - 14 Nov 05 - 09:53 AM

Just one question, where can I find the wording of this demand of the UN's that the United States of America NOT invade Iraq?

In the run up to the actual invasion, the US made it crystal clear exactly what construed "serious consequences" to mean. They also made it perfectly clear that the UNMOVIC round of inspections was not to degenerate into the game of hide and seek that Saddam had played before. The trigger for the "serious consequences" was if Iraq were to be found in material breach of UNSC Resolution 1441 - there were seven Material Breaches in all, prior to 17th March 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:05 AM

P.S.

Are you really comfortable clinging to the "we had to blatantly defy the UN in order to support UN resolutions" argument? Would you take this kind of argument seriously if it was coming from, say, your kids?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM

Guest, TIA,

Show me YOUR threads about Sudan.

As I have stated, we were already at war- and show me a single UN resolution stating the US should NOT enforce the previous resolutions.

YOU have never answered my question about the VAST demand on the part of the anti-war folks for Saddam to comply, and avoid the need for the war in the first place.

Are you really comfortable clinging to the " it does not matter what Saddam did, we should let him get away with not complying with anything he does not want to " arguement? Would you take this kind of argument seriously if it was coming from, say, your kids?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM

He lied. period.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:29 AM

twist, deflect, cling, spin...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:36 AM

In other words, you have no supporting evidence to offer for discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:47 AM

Careful Kendall you get into trouble stating that people lie on this thread - or does that only apply depending upon who the accusation is aimed at.

Pity for George W Bush, Tony Blair all their defence Analysts, Security Advisors and Intelligence Agencies. Pity for all those associated with the decisions taken by the Representatives and Governments making up the members of UN's Security Council. Because counter to what you believe Kendal - None of them lied. But maybe if they had included the phrase:

"To the best of our knowledge" with regard to Iraq's WMD everything would have been alright - honest mistake Eh???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:52 AM

No, in other words, any attempt at discussion with you is a waste of time. I've got better things to do than chase down references for you and chase you around your loopy illogical circles.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:56 AM

Hey, guys and gals, the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States says there are no WMDs in Iraq. No comments on that?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:00 AM

But you insist on MY chasing down references that you then refuse to read? Sounds like you have a highly inflated view of yourself- Who died and made YOU God?

You have yet to provide any evidence of either the truth of your statements or the illogic of anything I have brought up.


I doubt very much if such an attempt at reasoning will have any effect on any future wars- You can't defend your viewpoint even when you are in the majority.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:04 AM

Peace,

Are YOU stating that we should believe the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, when we have all this proof otherwise?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:06 AM

You know basically nothing about me and my view of myself. Yet you are perfectly willing to peg me. There's plenty of evidence right there.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:07 AM

LOLOLOL

It sure shoots a few feet here, don't it? Best chuckle I've had in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. C'mon, fess up BB. Ya gotta feel just a wee bit chagrinned, right?

Hey, I thought so too many years back. However, evidence over time--or rather, lack of evidence over time convinced me otherwise. Someday, someday soon I hope, you'll catch up.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:10 AM

BB, I am jerking your chain. Just havin' some fun, at bloody last. Please don't go gettin' all pissed at me. You are simply holding the wrong end of the handsaw on this one. Have a good day, buddy. Won't bug you about it anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,A
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:21 AM

Bruce, I am simply amazed at how some, actually many, have their minds made up and won't or can't listen to sources that offer views that differ from theirs. Of course you are coreect about the UN info but fact is a treacherous item here. You need to offer items from Slate, Moveon.org or buzzflash.
To rebuke statements with "twist, deflect, cling, spin" appears to go beyond closed mindedness. It almost takes on the appearance of a disease. I take back "amazed", make that astounded. Even the NY Times, which is quoted oft by the left, prints none liberal accounts now and then.

It will take years for all the facts to be presented with regard to this issue. The fighter planes buried under the sands of Iraq barely got mention. The oil for food scandal which this administration could take credit for gets little play. Of course, we will still have the people who have a mindset pretending nothing has changed.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:26 AM

"You know basically nothing about me and my view of myself. Yet you are perfectly willing to peg me."

I judge you on your comments here- if they do not represent you, try not making them. You have been making unsubstantiated statements and expecting them to be taken as true, while ignoring all evidence that supports any viewpoint you do not agree with. Typical God-delusion, to me.






Peace,

I try to look at the facts as known and as can be provided as evidence. I do not take what the administration says blindly, nor do I believe that everything they say is a lie.

I can build a nuclear device in about 2 months or less, if you let me have materials. Why should I believe that those who have threatened me, and my family, and my country, are any less capable?

The UN stated that there were prohibited materials unaccounted for- there were prohibited materials found in Iraq. Had Saddam complied, there would have been no need for war- yet none of the anti-war folks bothered to demand that. Why should I think, after being told to "STOP" a hell of a lot more than 3 time, that Saddam would not make up WMD with the materials that the UN had told him he should not have, and attack with scuds that he should not have had?

Check
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/abm-05zm.html

"Some 75 percent of the total U.S. population of 290 million people and 75 percent of its military bases are within 200 miles of the coast. The number of potential launch platforms is immense, with 130,000 registered merchant ships in 195 countries, NWIS said.

Thousands of SCUDs and other inexpensive short-range ballistic missiles have been dispersed, sold worldwide with some in countries where terrorist groups operate openly.

Iran test-launched a tactical ballistic missile from a ship last year and the threat has become much worse with the rapid proliferation of cruise missiles. China has already supplied many to Iran.

Some 70 countries already possess an estimated 75,000 anti-ship cruise missiles and many of them could be easily converted to land-attack weapons. At least 10 nations already have land-attack cruise missiles and their number is increasing, NWIS said"


So we should just ignore that Saddam was making missiles of a longer range than he was permitted? And that he had stockpiles of chemicals to produce WMD?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:35 AM

Teribus...Its quite permissible to call politicians liars,   they do it for a living!!

However ,its not good form to abuse venerable ladies, even for someone with a military background ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:37 AM

No. Hussein's non-compliance is a matter of fact. On that we agree. That he was trying to develop more WMDs is fact. On that we agree. The truth is that you and I mostly agree. Our only sticking point--the place we rub noses and yell at each other (or used to, anyway), is the US taking it upon itself to invade.

I think the President, knowingly or unknowingly, was off his rails. The reasons he gave for the invasion in his sales job to the American people (and because of TV, the rest of the world) also included wanting to even a few things up after 9/11. The issue was clouded. He was blowin' smoke. I have always thought that Bush is too stupid to have envisioned post-war Iraq and the opportunities for some BIG cash. Those around Bush weren't. The American taxpayer has indirectly supplied Halliburton with lotsa money. I think y'all got boondoggled.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:06 PM

Peace - 14 Nov 05 - 10:56 AM

"Hey, guys and gals, the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States says there are no WMDs in Iraq. No comments on that?"

Good point Peace, when in the third, or fourth quarter of 2002 did he say that? Or maybe it was sometime in the first quarter of 2003?

Of course not he made this statement much later didn't he - fair enough I'll buy it, no problem with that. Because the action taken by the US and her allies in March 2003 was taken in order to establish clearly that Iraq:

- No longer possessed WMD
- No longer had the ability to produce WMD
- No longer had research programmes aimed at acquiring and developing WMD or any related delivery systems.

- IT WAS NOT TAKEN TO FIND WMD. Finding WMD was not the litmus test which was to measure the success or failure of the mission.

They've actually done that, and on the 15th December 2005, the people of Iraq will vote for their first democratically elected Government.

No country in the world, no government, should delegate it's responsibility to act in the best interests of its citizens and national interests to any other body or organisation - certainly not to the UN judging on its past achievements. That is why the US, the UK and others (and there were quite alot of them, around one sixth of the membership of the UN) acted independently to resolve a problem that the UN had allowed to deteriorate for over 12 years. Post 9/11 the President of the United States of America could not rely on the UN taking any measures to prevent Saddam Hussein, or his successors, handing WMD technology or hardware to a terrorist organisation that may target the United States or her allies. That view point, considering the mans job and oath of office, to me is rational and totally understandable.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM

Too bad you guys couldn't have showed your proof to Stephen Hadley before he made his blundering statement. I'm sure he's been calling in every National Security Advisor favor he can lay his hands on for lo, these couple of years since the Iraq War, trying to scare up so much as a sling shot or a BB gun. Wonder why he's not referencing the same UNSC resolutions as you all to bolster the argument for WMDs in Iraq? Maybe he just gave in to popular opinion. Or maybe, as National Security Advisor, he doesn't have access to the same information as we common folk.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:18 PM

Teribus. Good post. However (ever notice there's always a 'however', LOL), the big difference between the Gulf War and this war: about 15 or 16 countries contributed to the Gulf War coalition. This one flew with the US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria. The rest of the crew, including my own country decided that the UN should be given more time. On the world stage, right must also have the appearance of right. I don't think it did in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:36 PM

Gulf War 1991
The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Invasion of Iraq 2003
The Coalition of the Willing consisted of 38 countries consisting of:

Current members:-
USA 150,000 troops.
United Kingdom 8,500
South Korea 3,250
Italy 3,030
Poland 1,500
Ukraine 950
Georgia 889
Romania 860
Australia 850
Japan 550
Denmark 540
Bulgaria 450
El Salvador 380
Mongolia 180
Azerbaijan 151
Latvia 136
Albania 120
Lithuania 118
Slovakia 105
Czech Republic 80
Bosnia and Herzegovina 36
Estonia 35
Macedonia 33
Kazakhstan 27
Norway 10

Members with no military involvement:-
Several countries chose not to, or could not, sustain a military involvement with regards to personnel, but nonetheless pledged their solidarity with the Coalition. Additionally, some of these countries allowed coalition forces to use their territory as launching points for offensives.

Angola
Colombia
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Kuwait
Micronesia
Rwanda
Solomon Islands
Uganda
Uzbekistan

Members which have withdrawn:-
Iceland 0 -- Mainly specialists and such.
Nicaragua 0 -- Withdrew 115 troops in February 2004
Dominican Republic 0 -- Withdrew 302 troops in May 2004
Honduras 0 -- Withdrew 370 troops in June 2004
Spain 0 -- Withdrew 1400 troops in June 2004
Philippines 0 -- Withdrew 51 troops in July 2004
Thailand 0 -- Withdrew 443 troops in August 2004
Hungary 0 -- Withdrew 300-troop NATO training force in December 2004
Tonga 100 -- Withdrew 40 troops in December 2004
Moldova 0 -- Withdrew 12 troops in February 2005
Portugal 0 -- Withdrew 128 policemen in February 2005
Netherlands 4 -- Withdrew 1350 troops in March 2005, later reduced troop level by nearly 800
Singapore 0 -- Withdrew its single Amphibious transport dock deployed in the Persian Gulf in March 2005.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:52 PM

OK. However, the broadcast I watched had just four, and they were the ones I mentioned. The others joined after Bush's initial call for support.

"Range of support

State department spokesman Richard Boucher explained that the list included some countries, like Japan, which are only prepared to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq.

And it includes Turkey, which is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.

Many of the countries on the list are from Eastern Europe, where countries like Romania are providing basing rights, while Poland has offered 200 troops and the Czech Republic is sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.

It was not clear what support countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria were providing to the US coalition, but many are seeking US financial or military support through Nato.

And the US had promises of support from some of the countries which are already involved in the war on terrorism, including Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, and the Philippines."

from here.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:30 PM

Peace,

"It was not clear what support countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria were providing to the US coalition, but many are seeking US financial or military support through Nato. "

A valid point, but would it not also be fair to mention the countries selling prohibited material to Saddam in violation of the UN resolutions? THAT would explain why some of the ones supporting the Gulf war were not willing to support this one.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:46 PM

Peace,

While being aware of the fanciful notion held dear by the cosy left, and the anti-war brigade, that Saddam, that loyal and close friend of the West, was armed to the teeth by the US and UK, the reality is somewhat different.

You ask the question:

"It was not clear what support countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria were providing to the US coalition."

The answer is rather obvious and also applies to the type of support that the other former Warsaw pact and Soviet Satellites could provide. Counter to popular belief, NATO does not possess CW or BW Weapons, Soviet Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries did, probably still do.

Now you are about to go up against an enemy that you,the rest of the world and the rest of the world's dog, believes has CW and BW weapons, I would say that it would be a pretty big plus to have people who were trained from the same manuals, on the same equipment and on the same procedures as your enemy. Who better to advise on condition and safety of stored munitions - rational? logical? reasonable?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

Whaddya mean "cosy", Teribus? Don't condescend to me, you lily-livered son of a vulture's wingpit! It's anything but cosy being a leftist. It's highly demanding and stressful. I should think you would have more sensitivity than to use offensive implications like that word "cosy", Teribus. I would demand immediate satisfaction, were I not aware that satisfaction is the one thing this consumer culture constantly promises...but never delivers... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:05 PM

Ah well LH,

Regarding things not being cosy being a leftist, from your post I can see that, it must indeed be pretty demeaning, sorry demanding, and stressful being a leftist, especially if you want to go in the right direction, I mean the conflict of principles alone don't bear thinking about.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:15 PM

Peace,

Perhaps you can tell me what the anti-war folks think that ANY US government will do if a WMD ( or several) is used against the US? If we even suspect who it was, IMO a LOT more people will die than in a dozen Iraq-style invasions.

I do not support nuclear war: But the path the anti-war folks seem to push seems to lead to one.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:45 PM

Oh Little Hawk,

As a comitted leftist it must also be damn nigh impossible to ever do the right thing. Now that would explain a great deal.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:02 PM

Well, Teribus, I will say this: I have been known to drive all around town just in order to avoid making a right turn at an intersection. It wouldn't be so bad if I were in the UK, but we are forced by law to drive on the right in Canada! Disgusting. I should think that in a country with a long history of giving socialism perfect respectability (which it certainly does NOT have in the USA...), Canadians could see fit to drive on the left too.

Anyway, once one has eliminated all possible errors in any given situation, there is only one thing left to do, isn't there? Naturally. That's why I'm a born leftist.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:30 PM

Like it

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:14 PM

"You have been making unsubstantiated statements and expecting them to be taken as true."

Name ONE.

You are famous for making statements FOR people. You have a habit of ending posts by putting your version of words in people's mouths. Don't even tell me to provide a reference for that. Just go up this (or any) thread.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:22 PM

..is that sort of like telling someone to piss up a rope?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:31 PM

Utah Phillips said they did discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...a banjo factory.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:59 PM

LH, thanks for correcting that bit about Czech Cavalry...
and thanks for the analysis of the battle or britain (you might have added that there were also many Czech and Polish expatriot pilots who fought on the British side.)

as for the title thread..
I think the facts speak for themselves..
no WMDs were found... didnt David Kay already come out with that a year ago..

did the Bush Administration mislead? they took a page out of Goebbels book, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth..

just keep saying "wmds.. saddam al qaeda and 9/11" in one sentence and sooner or later the MAJORITY of Americans believe that WMDS were found, that Saddam had links with Al Qaeda (even though GWBUsh himself admitted that wasnt the case)

George Tenet called it a 'slam dunk case' whereas Colin Powell now views his presentation to the UN as the low point of his career.

and now instead of investigating the failur to find WMDs which was the main reason to go to war as the Democrats have demanded, they will be investigating who leaked that bit about Americas 'secret prisons' all around the world.

(here what Gwynne Dyer had to say about Iraq)
The British Ministry of defence wanted an ubiased poll and paid local academics withouth telling them who actually commissioned the poll.
and they got a truthful report -- 45 percent of
Iraqis support attacks against "coalition troops" (mostly Americans and British), and less than one percent believed that foreign military
involvement was helping to improve security in Iraq.

Since 20% of Iraqis are Kurds who want independence and see the US
invasion as helping their goal, so when you subtract the Kurds,
practically all Arabs in Iraq, both Shia and Sunni, and not just 82
percent of "Iraqis", are "strongly opposed" to the presence of foreign
troops. Almost two-thirds of Arab Iraqis, not just 45 percent of "Iraqis",
believe that attacks on occupation troops are justified.

       The game is over. It's time to go home. But you know they won't.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,A
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:09 AM

Guest, your rope comment appears to be out of context. Hoever, if you will hold it, I will ................

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:20 AM

Guest,

When you get a real identity, and are willing to stand behind what you say, we can have a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Digger
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

The quote that started this thread is from Richard Miniter, 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 found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:08 PM

Teribus: ...since 1998 the world has become a safer place (even taking into account Iraq and Darfur) we are 40% less likely to experience a war and 60% less likely to encounter genocide.

Well, given the fact that we have a war now sucking all our resources ... and given the fact that the genocide in Darfun continues, I'd hardly take solace in that alleged "fact" (for which you provide no reference).

But I'd note that the State Department's own estimate of terrorism has such increasing substantially (so much so that they fudged the numbers the first time out to keep Dubya's pants from falling off). Any particualr reason you didn't mention the figures for terrorism? Selective vision of a sorts?

I travel a lot, Teribus, as do my fellow workers. One just got back from Jordan, a week prior to the attacks there. Our company has said "that's it", no more travel to Jordan. But I'd not be adverse to Jordan; I'm a bit type-A, and I was over in 1/5 Muslim Tchad a month after 9/11. But there is one place I will not go, tops of the list, and strangely enough, that is the one place the United States has well over 100K troops in to "keep the peace"! Because there is a difference between risk-taking ehaviour and suiicidal stoopidity. Even Afghanistan and Pakistan are comparatively peaceful compared to the carnage in Iraq. But our company won't send people to Pakistam; we have to hire local and dial ion remotely (and while it hasn't come up, I'd expect the same for Afghanistan.

If you really think we're in a safer place now that we were a couple of years ago, I'd suggest that you go visit one of these countries, and we might put an end to our arguments here one way or another. Make sure you wear your Toby Keith T-shirt.

Akenaton: Arne..Game set and match to you, whoever you are!!

Ummm, strangely enough, I go by my given name of "Arne Langsetmo". ;-)

BB:

[Arne]: I really don't gave a d*** whether you think that a "state of war" existed. What matters is what people that actually know about these kinds of things know."

BB: A perfect quote- so why should I believe anyt of your lies, when you do not believe the UN reports?

Once again, who, beside yourself and similar HW apologists, thought that a "state of war" existed?

BB: U-235 , please, or plutonuium. Some of us know how easy it is to make a bomb, once you have the materials. He had the materials, in violation of the cease-fire terms and the UN resolutions.

I suspect that I could build a "Thin-Man" type bomb in a month or so with enough HEU (i.e., more than 95% U-235). Plutonium a bit more difficult. But both U-235 enrichment and plutonium separation require massive industrial efforts. But Saddam had neither the Pu or U-235, not the facilities to manufacture such. The 3% or so "enriched" urianium he did have requires almost as much processing as raw uranium to produce any weapons-grade material.

BTW, this is why control of weapons-grade material is so important, and why it's such a travesty that even Tom Keane complained in his follow-up 9/11 commission report recently that we're dropping the ball on trying to secure this stuff and destroy it. But the Republican Congress has consistently short-changed programs to try and get the massive amounts of WGM under control in teh former Soviet Union.

Teribus: IT WAS NOT TAKEN TO FIND WMD.

Could have fooled a lot of people. Ummm, hmmm, oh yeah, righto, it did fool a lot of people. Not me, though.   ;-)

Teribus: No country in the world, no government, should delegate it's responsibility to act in the best interests of its citizens and national interests to any other body or organisation - certainly not to the UN judging on its past achievements.

"Every man for himself..." Yeah, that works.... 2000+ U.S dead for a lie, Teribus. If it's so noble, why aren't you over there?

BB: Perhaps you can tell me what the anti-war folks think that ANY US government will do if a WMD ( or several) is used against the US? If we even suspect who it was, IMO a LOT more people will die than in a dozen Iraq-style invasions.

Ummm, if you're getting into C/B analysis, you need to add in probabilities:

If P(a)*C(a) is greater than P(b)*C(b), then choose alternative "b", otherwise choose "a". You seem to be assuming equal probablitities of outcomes, something that is far from extablished. And of course you also seem to be engaging in a bit of "fallacy of bifurcation" and carefully choosing the only two options you'd like to discuss, in the hopes that the comparison will be favourable to the option you prefer. In fact, there's generally lots of potential options, each with their own probability ofoutcome and their own cost.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:18 PM

Just to add some colour to the discussion, here ya go....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:29 PM

"In fact, there's generally lots of potential options, each with their own probability ofoutcome and their own cost."

True, and the option of combat, to achieve what 14 years of other options had failed , and had no chance of being successful in the future, seems like a good example.


"Once again, who, beside yourself and similar HW apologists, thought that a "state of war" existed?"

The Iraqis, from all their actions.


"when you do not believe the UN reports?"

You did not answer this... You can't use the reports to support your own points if you do not allow me to use them to support mine.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:37 PM

BB: True, and the option of combat, to achieve what 14 years of other options had failed , and had no chance of being successful in the future, seems like a good example.

Ummm, first off, the post-war inspections showed that the "14 years of other options" did indeed work. Secondly, the renewed inspections, under even more permissive circumstances, were reaffirming precisely this. Why you continue to insist on things that are counter to fact is mystifying.

[Arne]: "Once again, who, beside yourself and similar HW apologists, thought that a "state of war" existed?"

BB: The Iraqis, from all their actions.

That's pretty lame. Care to try again.

FWIW, if you are insisting that the attacks on the "no-fly-zone" patrols were a state of war, you have a pretty poor idea of what a state of war is. In point of fact, the U.S. instituted the "no-fly" zones unilaterlally, and without U.N. approval. If anyone else flew ove the U.S. with armed warplanes against its wishes, one would harldy insist that the U.S. had started a war if it decide to fire on those planes; in fact, it would be the nation that sent the planes that would be the aggressor, and if such nation desisted or refrained from such, no state of war would pertain. The U.S. planes repeatedly bombed radar sites, communications facilities, and even did test probes and other provocative acts beyond the "no-fly" zones, just to try and get the Iraqis to light up the radars and then to locate and in some cases blow these up. And not a single U.S. plane was brought down by the Iraqis, not a single pilot hurt. Then there were the cruise missile attacks in 1998 and other times. Attacking another nation is hardly a justification for attacking that other nation.

That being said, "state of war" is a more formal legal concept than you seem to be suggesting here.

BB: You did not answer this... You can't use the reports to support your own points if you do not allow me to use them to support mine.

Ummm, what exactly did you wish to point out in the U.N. reports? Please be specific, and I'll try to answer.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:05 PM

The New York Times finally gets tired of pussy-footing and "polite" language and decides to call a spade a spade:

To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

Read the rest.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:14 PM

BB, Teribus, and Susu's Hubby:

Your ship is leaving harbour. You might be advised to do a rat census before you clamber up the gangway; I understand they have a preternatural gift for avoiding the least sea-worthy vessels (as seems apparent by the poll figures for Republicans).   ;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:20 PM

Here's one rat, BB, Teribus, et.al. See if you can figure out which way he's headed.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:27 PM

And here's what we're doing to make the world a more secure place at pennies on the dollar. Not.

We could use our resources (if we didn't have them tied down in Iraq) to try and get help to the Pakistani earthquake victims. Lots of help. And as soon as possible. Instead, we're sitting on our hands, and letting the "baddies" make new friends. Great thinking, I'd say....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:53 AM

I have an identity. It is GUEST. In some instances, it has more respectability and dignity to it than some of the inane "real" (insert your favorite yayhoo "handle" here) identities I come across in this forum.

And I will stand by the above statements.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 02:08 AM

Arne - Are you new to mudcat? If so, welcome.

I totally agree with your remarks about aiding the people of Kashmir and making the world a more secure place. It is hard to believe that with men and equipment so near, that their relief efforts have been so minimal. Its almost as if they want the region to be governed by warlords and terrorists.   

Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems to thrive on fear and insecurity.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:44 AM

Arne,

"Ummm, first off, the post-war inspections showed that the "14 years of other options" did indeed work. Secondly, the renewed inspections, under even more permissive circumstances, were reaffirming precisely this. "

Hardly. WHERE did he get all the items mentioned in the first post, the (new) prohibited scuds, and all the other prohibited material that he did NOT have ( according to his own reports, and the UN) just after the Gulf war? I guess Santa brought them to him on a whim.

EVEN the UN stated that he was NOT cooperating, and had NOT complied. ONLY after the US had begun to mobilize troops did he even let the inspectors in to many areas, and THAT was AFTER the deadline and still not fully compliant.





"Why you continue to insist on things that are counter to fact is mystifying"


Exactly. WHY do you insist on ignoring the facts, and making unsubstantiated statements, and expect anyone to believe them?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:57 AM

And, just fir the record, other than glossing over the Hans Blix *quote*, about Iraq cooperating, I really haven't read where anyone refutes that iether he made the statement or that he was incorrect in making it...

Like the only think that occured between his report at the UN and the actual date of the attack was in the incessant pounding of Bush's PR War Drum to the point that the decibels just over-rode the millions and millions of folks in the streets say "Hell No, You Friggin' Moron", over-rode the good thinking of news pepartemtns as both the Post and te Times have confessed, over-road the voices within the intellegence community who were sayin' "Hey7, wait a minute, that ain't the way I see it, over-road George Tenant's pleas not to use the "16 words" and over-rode the basic Christyain principles that Bush claimed to possess...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:12 AM

Bobert,

Show me where " the millions and millions of folks in the streets " demanded that Saddam comply with the UN resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:19 AM

Arne,

"FWIW, if you are insisting that the attacks on the "no-fly-zone" patrols were a state of war, you have a pretty poor idea of what a state of war is. In point of fact, the U.S. instituted the "no-fly" zones unilaterlally, and without U.N. approval. "


The "No-Fly Zone War" pitted the air and naval forces of the United States and the United Kingdom (also referred to as "Great Britain"), against the air defenses of Iraq. This conflict proved to be largely ignored by the media and the public in both the U.S. and in the U.K., though it impacted the military and the citizens of Iraq on an almost weekly basis, especially since the intense "Desert Fox" bombing campaign of 1998. The roots of this conflict are quite simple to trace: the inconclusive and vague cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. As time progressed though, the No-Fly Zones became a means for the Allies to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors. As tensions mounted after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the possibility of a major escalation between Iraq and the U.S. increased dramatically, and the violence in the No-Fly Zone increased in preparation for the beginning of the Third Persian Gulf War: "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which began on March 19, 2003. In historical terms, the No-Fly Zone War is considered to have ended on March 19, 2003, when "Operation Iraqi Freedom" began and this conflict segued into the larger war. All three of the U.S.-led Coalition wars with Iraq (the 1990-1991 Gulf War, the 1991-2003 No-Fly Zone War, and the 2003 Gulf War 2) can really be seen as one long, extended conflict, but for classification purposes, are seen as separate conflicts. (written on March 22, 2003)


In the years since the Gulf War (1990-1991), the United States and Iraq have engaged in a state of continued hostility. Under the terms of the armistice, which ended the war over Kuwait in 1991, Iraq agreed to allow United Nations weapons, inspectors to search for and destroy suspected weapons of mass destruction, (WOMDs). Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are included in this category, and Iraq is known to have previously used chemical weapons in warfare with Iran and with Kurdish rebels. In 1981, Israel launched an air attack on the Iraqi nuclear weapons research site of Osirak, thereby publicizing the early stages of Baghdad's nuclear program.

In order to force Iraq to comply with these restrictions on weaponry, the United Nations and the United States have conducted an economic embargo of Iraq, which has devastated the economy, and the infrastructure of the nation. Iraq claims several hundred thousand children have died of malnutrition and poor medical care resulting from these economic sanctions.

Periodically, this "cold war" erupts into open warfare, as the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein defies the UN and the U.S., prompting military responses.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:21 AM

Since American and British forces carried out Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 against Iraq, this "forgotten" war in the Middle East has only become more intense. According to the New York Times in an article on August 13, 1999, American and British forces have escalated the continuing war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Since the beginning of 1999 through August 1999, Allied pilots launched over 1,100 missiles against 359 Iraqi targets. That number equals nearly three times the amount of ordnance used in the four-day Desert Fox strike. Also, the pilots in the Iraq War have flown two-thirds the number of missions as NATO pilots in the 1999 Kosovo War. By all accounts, Iraqi forces continue to target their radar and fire missiles at Allied warplanes despite the punishment inflicted from the air. The estimated, unofficial cost of this war to U.S. and British taxpayers is around $1 billion per year. As of August 1999, over 200 military planes, 19 naval ships and 22,000 American military personnel are committed to enforcing the "no-fly zones" and to fighting Iraq. In addition, reports indicate that the death rate for small children has doubled in Iraq over the past decade. These child deaths are attributed to the continuing war and economic sanctions on Iraq and Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to live up to the 1991 cease-fire agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:31 AM

Arne: "In point of fact, the U.S. instituted the "no-fly" zones unilaterlally, and without U.N. approval. "


"cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq."


So what else do you have wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:51 AM

Apologies Arne with regard to your post of 15 Nov 05 - 04:08 PM

"Teribus: ...since 1998 the world has become a safer place (even taking into account Iraq and Darfur) we are 40% less likely to experience a war and 60% less likely to encounter genocide."

In which you commented - "Well, given the fact that we have a war now sucking all our resources ... and given the fact that the genocide in Darfun continues, I'd hardly take solace in that alleged "fact" (for which you provide no reference)."

The findings of the study were reported by Cnn.com - Study:Fewer wars, less deadly - Oct 18th 2005. The source was United Nations (AP), you will find the article at: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/17/war.un.ap/index.hmtl

This was the first Human Security Report funded by Canada, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:02 AM

from the cease-fire terms:

24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of:

(a) Arms and related materiel of all types, specifically including the sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their means of production, for such equipment;

(b) Items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12 above not otherwise covered above;

(c) Technology under licensing or other transfer arrangements used in the production, utilization or stockpiling of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;

(d) Personnel or materials for training or technical support services relating to the design, development, manufacture, use, maintenance or support of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;

25. Calls upon all States and international organizations to act strictly in accordance with paragraph 24 above, notwithstanding the existence of any contracts, agreements, licences or any other arrangements;

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm


The above was 1991- AFTER the destruction of Iraq's armed forces in the Gulf War.

By 2000,
Military Strength   
Iraq               
   
$1.3 Billion (pre-invasion) Yearly Military Expense
NA                % of GNP            
18                Min. Enlist Age      
6,547,762          Available Manpower   
375,000 (possible) Active Military      
280,000 (possible) Frontline Personnel   
651                Aircraft            
7,430             Armor               
3,050             Artillery            
5,210             Missile Defense      
4,000             Infantry Support      
   
OBVIOUSLY the UN sanctions were effective.....NOT


Or do you claim this was what he had left over AFTER the Gulf War???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:06 AM

Arne,

other reference documents- perhaps you can read what was said by the UN, instead of making it up?

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:07 AM

Sorry-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,A
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:24 AM

I also would like to hear more about the "millions and millions of people in the streets yelling hell, no".
A high percentage of the populace was in favor, the House and Senate gave its' approval and the United Nations had a resolution that gave the same blessing as the US Government.

Interesting thing about the World Wide Web is that anyone can get on and say any damn fool thing they desire. Truth is not a prerequisite.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:40 PM

BB: Hardly. WHERE did he get all the items mentioned in the first post, the (new) prohibited scuds, and all the other prohibited material that he did NOT have ( according to his own reports, and the UN) just after the Gulf war? I guess Santa brought them to him on a whim.

The missiles (and they weren't SCUDs, Oraq didn't have any SCUDs contrary to U.S. definitive assertions) were arguably permissible (the Iraqis thought that they were within the limits, with only a few test shots exceeding the nominal maximum range, and that without warheads; nonetheless the Iraqis agreed to destroy the al Samoud missiles rather than get into a pissing contest about the legality and give the U.S. an excuse to invade).

EVEN the UN stated that he was NOT cooperating, and had NOT complied.

There's a difference betewen "co-operating" and actually having any WoMD ... and sometimes "co-operation" is in the eyes of the beholder (fortunatey, the inspections were not dependent on any co-operation for success). If "non-cooperation" is to be a casus belli for a war of aggression, though, this world is going to turn into a pretty ugly place....

ONLY after the US had begun to mobilize troops did he even let the inspectors in to many areas, and THAT was AFTER the deadline and still not fully compliant.

So the troop mobilisation did the trick. Now then, dear Bruce, seeing as we got what we needed (and also seeing that the inspections were coming up pretty darn close to clean), care to explain to Cindy Sheehan and 2000 other mothers why their sons came home in a box?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:52 PM

Under the terms of the cease-fire, all missiles with a range over 150 km as well as all R&D, support and manufacturing facilities, are to be dismantled, and Iraq is prohibited from using, developing, constructing or otherwise acquiring ballistic missiles over that range in the future. After the Gulf War, the 61 missiles that Iraq had acknowledged remained in its arsenal were destroyed; the head of the UN mission in charge of the task said that the UN had no evidence indicating that the Iraqis possess any other missiles. However, to alleviate any lingering doubts, the Special UN Commission is mandated by Res. 687 to develop a long-term plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification to ensure Iraqi compliance with its terms.
Since the end of the Gulf War, UN inspection teams worked to find evidence that Iraq has hidden a residual Scud force of 100-200 missiles and 12-20 launchers. In March 1993, Rolf Ekeus, chairman of the U.N. Commission charged with eliminating Iraq's weapons that are in violation of Resolution 687, said that inspectors were unable to account for 200 of Iraq's 800 Scuds. As time past without discovering this putative residual force, the question turned to how quickly these hidden Scuds could be brought to a state of military readiness. The East German army considered that if kept in the maufacturers containers with partial guidance systems installed the Scud could be assembled after 20 years of storage and be ready for fuelling in about 95 minutes. Consequently, the US was concerned that if UN sanctions were lifted before there was high confidence that all Scuds and other potential WMD are eliminated, Iraq could quickly renew its threat to the Gulf region and in a few years regain its missile development and production capacity. A similar concern pertained to Iraq's residual nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs that may be eluding UN Inspectors.

"Earlier ambiguity concerning Iraq's residual missile inventory has been largely resolved, though UNSCOM maintains that Iraq is still concealing six to sixteen enhanced Scud missiles, potentially able to deliver chemical or biological warheads. These Al Hussein missiles have eluded UNSCOM inspectors, along with as many as 20 long-range missile warheads produced before 1991 specifically to carry biological weapons. Iraqi is also known to have biological gravity bombs and tons of VX nerve gas. By 1996 UNSCOM concluded that Iraq had produced 80 Scud-like missiles indigenously -- thereby placing in doubt UNSCOM's initial overall count of Iraq's original missile inventories. UNSCOM teams visiting in 1996 have been unable to locate hidden missiles but UNSCOM has been investigating Iraq's methods of concealment. "

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/unscom.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 04:12 PM

Arne,

Try READING the UN resolution, before making judgements about what it says:

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

          Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

          Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

          Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

          Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

          Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,"





I have posted the link in this thread. It seems a pity that you would rather tell us what it is supposed to say than look at it and see what it actually says.


I am sure that if you want to declare the UN to have said something, all the world has to agree that you, rather than the UN printed reports, are correct.

Heil Arne!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 04:29 PM

What part of " Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," is so hard to understand?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:15 PM

Keep up the good work BB. I am little busy now to try to educate the uneducable.

I wonder if any of them would like to have lived in Iraq under the Saddam regime?

We need some input from an Iraqi citizen

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:14 PM

BB:

Re the FAS "Iraq Missiles" page you quoted, here's what it said at the bottom:

Updated Monday, November 02, 1998 9:36:21 AM

BTW, thanks for the confirmation that the U.S. was quite 'provocative' in their "no-fly" missions. You know, "no-fly" means (or was supposed to mean) that Saddam didn't use his helicopters to go after Shia or Kurds. So enforcing the "no-fly" zone should have been shooting down any errant helos in the "no-fly" zone (of which there were none). Instead, it was dumping an incredible amount of ordnance on the central portions of Iraq.

As I pointed out, the U.S. was trying to provoke hostilities (if not just simply engaging in this themselves). To try and paint this as an Iraqi violation of the cease-fire terms (and thus that a "state of war" existed) is pretty d*** absurd. I'm surprised you'd even try such a transparently ridiculous ploy.

What part of " Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," is so hard to understand?

What part of "some folks think that 2000 U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqis dead is a fair price to pay to tell someone that you think they're (arguably) in technical violation of some terms of a cease-fire" don't you understand?

Do you really think that alleged technical violations far short of actual acts armed aggression or even the realistic threat of such is a good reason to actually engage in such armed aggression yourself? That's rather curious logic, in my book, and if I might add, leads to rather untoward turns of events in the long run....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:04 AM

Arne...." "no-fly" means (or was supposed to mean) that Saddam didn't use his helicopters to go after Shia or Kurds. So enforcing the "no-fly" zone should have been shooting down any errant helos in the "no-fly" zone (of which there were none)"

Well Arne, seems that you have the wrong end of the stick again. In interviews relating to the Ceasefire Agreement reached at Safwan, the subject of helicopters with regard to "no-fly" was raised by the Iraqis. They argued that with so many bridges destroyed the helicopters were needed to fly in aid, and as such should be allowed to fly the coalition members thought this point to be reasonable. 'Stromin' Norman said it was the biggest mistake he made.

An example of the odd logic applied by Arne:

BB..."What part of " Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," is so hard to understand?"

Now that is a fairly straightforward question - Below is Arne's response

Arne...."What part of "some folks think that 2000 U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqis dead is a fair price to pay to tell someone that you think they're (arguably) in technical violation of some terms of a cease-fire" don't you understand?"

Which of course ducks the question, but Arne tends to do that as a matter of course.

Arne having just fought a war to free Kuwait the UN forces in return for ceasing military action required Iraq accept the provisions of resolution 687 including the obligations on Iraq that 687 contained - Iraq Agreed to that but then refused to comply with it. Now simple as it may sound, if the 'Ceasefire' was based on the requirements of 687 AND Iraqi compliance with those requirements in order to fulfil the obligations detailed in 687, if Iraq does not comply the 'ceasefire' no longer exists - military action may be resumed to ensure compliance.

Example Arne - On Lunenburg Heath in May 1945 representatives of the German High Command surrendered to the Allies. In doing so certain obligations were placed upon those German commanders. Now if they had toddled away from that tent on Lunenburg Heath and failed to honour those obligations - would, or should, the Allied Commanders have just ignored it? - Rhetorical question No they wouldn't, hostilities would have resumed pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:27 AM

Arne,

" Instead, it was dumping an incredible amount of ordnance on the central portions of Iraq."

When, IN VIOLATION of the cease-fire terms, the Iraqis angaged in acts of aggression against the patrolling forces, they were bombed. Seems like they had a choice here.

BTW, why didn't Saddam just open his borders and let the Coalition forces come in without a fight? MAYBE he was still hiding something?




YOU have never answered my question about the VAST demand on the part of the anti-war folks for Saddam to comply, and avoid the need for the war in the first place.

Are you really comfortable clinging to the " it does not matter what Saddam did, we should let him get away with not complying with anything he does not want to " arguement? Would you take this kind of argument seriously if it was coming from, say, your kids?

How will YOU explain that you would rather have all those people dead than ask that Saddam comply with his obligations?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:56 AM

Once again the hawks divert attention away from the reasons the American people were told for war into little details of sticky UN resolutions... Heck, if every country in the world got invaded becuase they were not 100% complient with ebvery UN resulotion or treaty, wouldn't be many uninvaded countries to name...

As we speak our own US of A carries out torture on prisoners/detainees ion violation of the Geneva accords.... Maybe the UN needs to issue a resolution on the US of A ordering use to cease this behavior and maybe impose sanction if we don't and maybe attack the US of A after some period of time if we don't quit torturing folks???

But back to the premise of the war... The first PR shot fired at the citizens of the US of A was by Condi Rice with her "mushroom cloud" statement... Maybe my friend, BB, would like to tell the folks just how far the Iraqi's missles were capable of flyin' and then maybe a followup onhow far it is from Iraq to the US of A...

See, the discussion shouldn't be about the picky-unny details but the big piccure and that is that, yes, the Iraqi's were cooperating with the inspection teams... That' the real story here... What motivated them to cooperate is not the big story but a mere sidebar... (And if your gonna quote this quote the entire paragraph please...)

Now here's another bit of food fir thought that folks aren't talkin' much about and that is why Iraq would not be fully cooperative. Hey, given how little they had in the way of weaponry, it is quite feasable they didn't want their neighbors to know how poorly they were equipped to defend themselves... If you'll recall the Iran/Iraq war it was the US supplying them and giving them tactical support that tipped the scales... If I'm running a Middle East country that is poorly equipeed to defend itself against it's neighbots, I ain't gonna run no full page ads advertisin' it... Just food for thought.... But should you think about that fir a second, try to do it as the head of any state Arab state in the region...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:14 AM

Bobert,

"Maybe my friend, BB, would like to tell the folks just how far the Iraqi's missles were capable of flyin' and then maybe a followup onhow far it is from Iraq to the US of A..."


The allowed range was 150 KM.



I repeat this from a post above:

Check
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/abm-05zm.html

"Some 75 percent of the total U.S. population of 290 million people and 75 percent of its military bases are within 200 miles of the coast. The number of potential launch platforms is immense, with 130,000 registered merchant ships in 195 countries, NWIS said.

Thousands of SCUDs and other inexpensive short-range ballistic missiles have been dispersed, sold worldwide with some in countries where terrorist groups operate openly.

Iran test-launched a tactical ballistic missile from a ship last year and the threat has become much worse with the rapid proliferation of cruise missiles. China has already supplied many to Iran.

Some 70 countries already possess an estimated 75,000 anti-ship cruise missiles and many of them could be easily converted to land-attack weapons. At least 10 nations already have land-attack cruise missiles and their number is increasing, NWIS said"


So we should just ignore that Saddam was making missiles of a longer range than he was permitted? And that he had stockpiles of chemicals to produce WMD?

From his attack on Kuwait, we had some indication that Saddam was a danger. We had a cease-fire based on his NOT having the weapons to be a danger to us: He violated that cease-fire, and obtained some, and was working on obtaining others.




"Heck, if every country in the world got invaded becuase they were not 100% complient with ebvery UN resulotion or treaty, wouldn't be many uninvaded countries to name..."

If a child molester is given parole on the condition he keeps away from kids, and then starts going into school during classes, he gets arrested. You do NOT arrest every adult going into a school unless you have some indication that they are commiting a crime.



fyi, 200 miles is about 300 KM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:50 AM

BTW, the ones Saddam was working on ( programs, remember? Even the testing of engines was prohibited) were IRBMs- could just about reach Europe...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844119/posts



"Earlier ambiguity concerning Iraq's residual missile inventory has been largely resolved, though UNSCOM maintains that Iraq is still concealing six to sixteen enhanced Scud missiles, potentially able to deliver chemical or biological warheads. These Al Hussein missiles have eluded UNSCOM inspectors, along with as many as 20 long-range missile warheads produced before 1991 specifically to carry biological weapons. Iraqi is also known to have biological gravity bombs and tons of VX nerve gas. By 1996 UNSCOM concluded that Iraq had produced 80 Scud-like missiles indigenously -- thereby placing in doubt UNSCOM's initial overall count of Iraq's original missile inventories. UNSCOM teams visiting in 1996 have been unable to locate hidden missiles but UNSCOM has been investigating Iraq's methods of concealment. "

Never did find out where those 6 to 16 ( plus how many "locally" produced) enhanced SCUDS went... On ships in Baltimore harbour?



From the UN:
"In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions."



"the al-Samoud liquid propellant missile has been extensively tested and had been deployed to military units. Intelligence indicated that at least 50 had been produced. Intelligence also indicated that Iraq had worked on extending its range to at least 200km in breach of UN Security Resolution 687.

In February 2003, U.N. inspectors evaluated two versions of the Al Samoud 2 missile using four separate computer models. Both versions were found to exceed the range limit of 150 kilometers set by the U.N. Security Council. The lighter version of the Al Samoud 2 was estimated to have a range of 193 kilometers, while the heavier version would be capable of a 162 km range. Accordingly, it was requested that all Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads be delivered to the inspectors for destruction.

A cache of 12 Al Samoud missiles was found south of Bayji at LD7154 and LD7644 on 21 July 2003 at 1700 hrs. "

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:12 PM

Teriobus: Arne...." "no-fly" means (or was supposed to mean) that Saddam didn't use his helicopters to go after Shia or Kurds. So enforcing the "no-fly" zone should have been shooting down any errant helos in the "no-fly" zone (of which there were none)"

Well Arne, seems that you have the wrong end of the stick again. In interviews relating to the Ceasefire Agreement reached at Safwan, the subject of helicopters with regard to "no-fly" was raised by the Iraqis. They argued that with so many bridges destroyed the helicopters were needed to fly in aid, and as such should be allowed to fly the coalition members thought this point to be reasonable. 'Stromin' Norman said it was the biggest mistake he made.

Ummm, and this has to do with my point .... exactly what??? Or are you just tossing in a deliberate "red herring" to distract and avoid the issue?

Teribus again: An example of the odd logic applied by Arne:

(scroll up for the exchange)

Seems like good logic to me, Teribus. Care to explain why you think that 2000 U.S. soldiers is a fair price to pay for slaking Dubya's peeve that he got his panties in a twist? Care to explain why you think that techincal violations (if even that) are sufficient reason for a war of choice? Care to explain why the U.S. (or rather more precisely, Dubya and his PNAC cronies) get to decide against the wishes of a majority of the U.N. Security Council that their will is best exoressed by a war of aggression? Hoep you aren't married, Teribus, because they'd have to send out the CSI team if your toast was ever burnt....

Teribus again (the point zinging over his head): ...military action may be resumed to ensure compliance.

Even if that were true (and as I pointed out, the refusal of the UNSC to authorise such actions, along with quite a few other reasons, argues against it), the question is "shoukd [] military action be resumed". Even if there were legal authorisation, however slim or dodgy that excuse, most people think that a war ought to be the "last resort" (as even Dubya thought ... or at least he said that ... hmmm, noooooo, do you think he was lying?).

BB: When, IN VIOLATION of the cease-fire terms, the Iraqis angaged in acts of aggression against the patrolling forces....

Ummm, like turning on radars? Damn the photons, full speed ahead. And there were communications facilities that were bombed; reports indicate that a fair amount of the pre-war bombing was aimed at communications and other facilities, just to get a head start on the bombing (and perhaps also to provoke Saddam into fooolish moves). Your account fo just the amount of ordnance dropped puts the lie to the fact that this was all "defensive" fire in response to Iraqi "aggression". This is c*** you're spewing, Bruce, and you know it.

BB: Are you really comfortable clinging to the "it does not matter what Saddam did, we should let him get away with not complying with anything he does not want to" arguement?

Nice "straw man" there, Bruce. I bet you're proud of yourself. Getting beyond your dishonest argumentative techniques, I would say that our response to any level of (sometimes alleged) violation should take into account not only the seriousness of violation but also the price we pay, morally, politically, economically, and in human lives of our response. That seems to be someting that you are continuing to face up to yourself ... for reasons that I think only you could possibly explain. But I think you should make the effort. In particular, is human life that damn cheap to you (as long as it's not your own or that of your loved ones)? Please enlighten us, Bruce: How many dead for a incomplete document? How many dead for an Iraqi shadow on the inspectors? Let's see if we can put a price tag on some of this stuff.... Tell you what: How much of a tweak from Saddam do you think your son's life would be worth? Please be specific.

BB: How will YOU explain that you would rather have all those people dead than ask that Saddam comply with his obligations?

Well, here's the dead we do do know about: 2060+ (and counting) U.S. soldiers. Many times that more Iraqis. But, funny thing, Bruce, they're dead even though Saddam had already complied with most of the "obligations" pretty well. The dead that I can manage to identify came becauswe Dubya wouldn't take "yes" for an answer. And these are the dead that we have to deal with right now.... Now where's your charred corpses to line up alongside them? In your fevered head? I'd say they have drugs nowadays that can help with that.....

BB hallucinates again: The allowed range was 150 KM.

...

"Some 75 percent of the total U.S. population of 290 million people and 75 percent of its military bases are within 200 miles of the coast. The number of potential launch platforms is immense, with 130,000 registered merchant ships in 195 countries, NWIS said.

Ummm, we let a ship with SCUD-type missiles on to Yemen after boarding it. Wise move, eh?

But you're dreaming ... nay, sorry, let's get specific, hallucinating ... when you think that these 150 Km (give or take a couple) were any practical threat to the U.S. (particularly considering the large numbver of such missiles extant around the world), and considering that Saddam had no way of getting them near the U.S., much less undetectably....

BB: From his attack on Kuwait, we had some indication that Saddam was a danger.

Only if we hand him a letter that says that any possible designs he might have on taking over the U.S. so as to corner the world market on Hollywood movies is not of any concern to us.   ;-)

BB: "Earlier ambiguity concerning Iraq's residual missile inventory has been largely resolved, though UNSCOM maintains that Iraq is still concealing six to sixteen enhanced Scud missiles, potentially able to deliver chemical or biological warheads.

Still trotting out stale garbage from 1998 or so? As Blix's team reported, claims of remanent SCUDs were chicken$hit....

BB: Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

The al Samoud missile was arguably legal. But FWIW, just to placate the U.S. and make sure they didn't have an excuse to invade, Saddam agreed to destry them (and they were being destroyed even as Dubya went to war).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:24 PM

Bottem line, BB, the missles that Sadam had would have fallen at least a couple thousand miles short of the US???

Correct???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:59 PM

Bruce--

Your needle is really stuck--change the record.

The US did not have UN authority to invade Iraq. End of story.

Do you really have nothing else to do with your life than, yet again, attack this poor dead horse that's been mouldering away so long its ghost doesn't know where it is?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 12:15 AM

First off:
Ron Davies - 17 Nov 05 - 10:59 PM

"The US did not have UN authority to invade Iraq."

FACT - The President of the United States of America does NOT need the sanction of ANYBODY to act in, what he and his administration believe to be, the best interests of the United States of America - End of story.

Secondly - GUEST (Arne Langsetmo) 17 Nov 05 - 10:12 PM

The point you were trying to make was that the *no-fly* zones applied to helicopters - they didn't (No red-herring Arne just another example of your absolutely deplorable comprehension).

This next Arne excerpt I found hilarious:

"Care to explain why you think that techincal violations (if even that) are sufficient reason for a war of choice? Care to explain why the U.S. (or rather more precisely, Dubya and his PNAC cronies) get to decide against the wishes of a majority of the U.N. Security Council that their will is best exoressed by a war of aggression? Hoep you aren't married, Teribus, because they'd have to send out the CSI team if your toast was ever burnt...."

I can almost see the poor little sod stamping his feet - Complete and utter drivel, Arne my little American Viking, complete and utter drivel.

More balderdash from Arne - war ought to be the "last resort" Unfortunately in life what ought to be ain't. Particularly if you want to get something done - High time the UN realised that, too late for Rwanda and Darfur of course. What have you read about Darfur in Aljazeera Arne?

Arne I realise that you have never served in the military and have no idea what constitutes 'acts of aggression' in a militarily sensitive environment, but - With regard to aircraft patrolling the 'no-fly'zones, turning on radars and lighting up aircraft is considered a hostile act, and proportionate response is justified. Believe me it is not c*** when, as a pilot you hear the audio warning that your aircraft has just been acquired by a surface to air missile battery radar. You respond immediately, or you die - FACT.

Arne, I see would have it that, irrespective of evaluated threat, we should:

- take into account not only the seriousness of violation.
- take into account the price we pay, morally, politically, economically, and in human lives of our response.

Just as well you were not around making decisions in 1939, some rather nasty pieces of work would have got away with it Scot free, and the world as a whole would have been a far nastier place than it is today. Well done Arne.

By the way Arne what is going on at present in Iraq has got SFA to do with Saddam Hussein, WMD, or UN Resolutions so don't try linking them. What you are seeing is pure opportunism in the wake of Saddam's departure, nothing more.

Oh Arne.... Just go back and read what the man said with regard to the extent of the threat posed, it did not singularly address a threat to the U.S. did it!!

No Arne, with regard to the Al Samoud missiles UNMOVIC provided their specification to two independent review bodies, both of whom found them to be in breach of UNSC Resolutions and reported so to both UNMOVIC and the Iraqi Government - That is why they were scrapped.

Oh and Arne, I believe the point BB was making about the 384 rocket motors was that they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 12:22 AM

Ahem... (drum roll)

WEREN'T!

Just had to say it. ;-) I'm going to sleep now. If you reply at great length, I may see it after my weekend holiday. Have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 12:43 PM

Teribus:

The point you were trying to make was that the *no-fly* zones applied to helicopters - they didn't (No red-herring Arne just another example of your absolutely deplorable comprehension).

IIRC, the reason we asked for the "no-fly" zones was that Saddam was using helicoters to go after the Kurds and Shia. Seems to me that if he went after the Kurds and Shia with helicopters, we might be able to claim we were acting within that (imposed) mandate in shooting such down. Whether there was some exception made for helicopters being used for non-military purpose is something that I can't claim knowledge on. But I'll hardly take your word for it. Nonetheless, the poitn remains: That we claimed a right to shoot down any Saddam (military) flights in the "no-fly" zones (that was what the words meant, after all), but that in fact there weren't any such flights, and instead we were sending HARMs up the a$$ of any AA radar sites with the temerity to light up, and also bombing "communications" facilities, etc., hardly the offensive capabilities which we claimed were the raison d'etre for imposing the "no-fly" zones. Of course, you'll try to side track the conversation again, and ignore that point....

This next Arne excerpt I found hilarious:

Glad I can provide some amusement.

[Arne]: "Care to explain why you think that tech[ni]cal violations (if even that) are sufficient reason for a war of choice? Care to explain why the U.S. (or rather more precisely, Dubya and his PNAC cronies) get to decide against the wishes of a majority of the U.N. Security Council that their will is best ex[p]ressed by a war of aggression? Ho[pe] you aren't married, Teribus, because they'd have to send out the CSI team if your toast was ever burnt...."

I can almost see the poor little sod stamping his feet - Complete and utter drivel, Arne my little American Viking, complete and utter drivel.

Strange. Becaue what I see is Teribus spinning, spinning, spinning .... and refusing to address the question. Proud of yourself?

More balderdash from Arne - war ought to be the "last resort"

Yeah. Even Dubya (as well as many seators, etc.) said that. Dubya didn't mean it though. He lied to you.

Unfortunately in life what ought to be ain't. Particularly if you want to get something done - High time the UN realised that, too late for Rwanda and Darfur of course. What have you read about Darfur in Aljazeera Arne?

Ummm, just what has Dubya done in Darfur? Oh, yeah, sorry, silly me, the Sudan doesn't have oil, billions in "reconstruction" money for Cheney's company, and a land-based 'aircraft carrier' in the middle of the Middle East. What was I thinking.....

With regard to aircraft patrolling the 'no-fly'zones, turning on radars and lighting up aircraft is considered a hostile act...

Kind of like saying "I'll punch your lights out" when you've had too much in the bar and are feeling surly, right, Teribus? Yep, threatening is a crime ("assault", to be precise, it is in fact "battery" that is the act of actually striking someone). But hardly the same "crime". I don't deny that turning on a radar and illuminating the target is a precursor to actually firing a missile in an attempt to bring down a plane, but that hardly makes it the same category of "act of aggression". Now I'll admit that the Iraqis did (at least from U.S. reports) fire on some U.S. planes, but as I've pointed out repeatedly, none were ever brought down, nor any pilots hurt. It was more the "Im gonna get you, copper" from a cornered crook.

[WRT the illumination indicator]: You respond immediately, or you die - FACT.

Ummm, as I said above, not one plane was ever brought down by the Iraqis while flying the "no-fly" patrols.

As I said, you really have a pretty perverted sense of what constitutes "aggression" which would justify $300B and 2000 U.S. servicemen losing their lives. I repeat: Go tell Cindy Sheehan that her son died because the Iraqis turned on their radars. Se what response you get, you brave, brave boy, you....

Arne, I see would have it that, irrespective of evaluated threat, we should:

- take into account not only the seriousness of violation.
- take into account the price we pay, morally, politically, economically, and in human lives of our response.

Ummm, yup. And you would seemingly think that we should not think about anything like that. Imagine my surprise.

Just as well you were not around making decisions in 1939, some rather nasty pieces of work would have got away with it Scot free, and the world as a whole would have been a far nastier place than it is today. Well done Arne.

Trotting out the flogged and dead "see, see, WWII!" horse again, eh? First of all, Germany declared war on us (and Japan attacked us). Secondly, it was RWers (and their buddies in the American Bund) that thought that Hitler was maybe not so bad, or even that we should have thrown our lot in with him). Bad example, Teribus. You assume that I would think that WWII shouldn't have been fought. This is a totally unwarranted assumption. FWIW, my parents didn't even get to make any choice in the matter; they were living under Nazi occupation. So maybe you'd concede if you actually took the time to think ... oh, sorry, assuming facts not in evidence ... that I might have at least some opinions on WWII that might not fit your preconceived notions of who I am here....

By the way Arne what is going on at present in Iraq has got SFA to do with Saddam Hussein, WMD, or UN Resolutions so don't try linking them.

A fact that sadly seems to have escaped Dubya, Cheney, the PNAC, and you....

Or ... perhaps ... was the maladministration lying to us about their actual game plan? Imagine that ... no, no one could be so cavalier with the lives of U.S. soldiers....

No Arne, with regard to the Al Samoud missiles UNMOVIC provided their specification to two independent review bodies, both of whom found them to be in breach of UNSC Resolutions and reported so to both UNMOVIC and the Iraqi Government - That is why they were scrapped.

As I said, the difference betweem 149 Km and 155 Km is insignificant, functionally. Iraq had a plausible argument on the range sans payload, but as I noted, they agreed to destroy them. What's the problem? How many U.S. soldiers should lose their lives because you got your knickers in a twist about this? C'mon, give me a numebr, Teribus....

Well, I'll be busy preparing/packing for a trip to the Indian subcontinent for the next couple weeks, Teribus, so I'll have to check your responses when I return, I suspect. See if you can put a price on the life of a U.S. soldier in the meanwhile, OK? And while you're at it, how about a rating of their lives versus yours: How many U.S> Marines is one blustering Teribus of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders worth? Which has more potential to do some good in the world, and which is of more interest to you? Do tell....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 04:11 PM

Ron,

So you follow the SRS rule of only doiscussing something if the other side concedes you are right, first? I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT- and you have provided NO evidence or documentation to indicate any reason I should believe it to be true.


Arne,

"As Blix's team reported, claims of remanent SCUDs were chicken$hit...."

Ditto- no evidence.

And you have NEVER answered my question.

How will YOU explain that you would rather have all those people dead than ask that Saddam comply with his obligations?






Strange. Becaue what I see is Arne spinning, spinning, spinning .... and refusing to address the question. Proud of yourself? Proud of all the dead that NOT making Saddam comply for all those years caused? Proud of encouraging a war?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 04:18 PM

"The Chimp and the Poodle"   Mk11........Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:01 PM

Bruce and Teribus remind me mightily of The Chimp and the Poodle MK1, who feature prominently in the auld scots sang by my friend Davie Robertson....Ake

"The Chimp and the Poodle"....Davie Robertson... Greentrax245

"The chimp and the poodle were ridin' the range,
says the chimp tae the poodle,"dae ye no think it strange,
That the world goes in fear,nay, in tremblin' indeed,
Ower a radge deekin gadge, wi a towel on his heid".
"By jings" says the poodle, "I'm shair that yer right,
but I'm ready tae bark if you're ready tae bite
An the dark clouds o' terror we soon will disperse,
Wi a nuclear holocaust under his erse!"


"Alas says the chimp "that'll no dae nae guid,
For the beardie auld bastard has ran off an' hid!
An' as tae the question o' where he is noo,
The truth o' it is that we huvnae a clue.
But tho' I'm nae gorilla an merely a chimp,
I'll show tae the world I'm nae limp wristed wimp'
For noo the idea's been put intae ma heid,
I'll annihillate some other bugger insteed!"


"Bravo!!" the bold poodle cried, waggin' his tail
Although yer a chimp yer a real alpha male,
But if ye wid show yersell aff it yer best
As a rid-blodded warrior may I suggest,
Theres that chap wi the mauser,ye ken
Ye cuffed him before ye could skelp him again,
He's got oilfields like cherries just ripe for the pickin'
"Come on!! blooter Baghdad, and we'll gie him a kickin.


Yee-ha yelled the chimp. Said the poodle,"wuff wuff!!
An they spat and they swore an looked helluva tough'
An invincible force tae the Gulf was ca'ed up
Led by Mickey the monkey an Fido the pup
As they entered Baghdad tae the beat o' the drum,
Theywere showered wi bananas an Pedigree Chum.
The stock market bounced back tae where it had been,
So hurray for "Democracy" God an the Queen.


And half a hurray for Teribus and Bruce ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:09 PM

ad hominom attack- I guess that is the best you can do.


Sonnet 17/02/03                        DCCLXXXVII

If blood be price of empire, what's the cost
To stand aside, and let tyrants hold sway?
What moral ground remains, if we have lost
The will to stand firm and "No further!" say?
Can we ignore this danger to our lives,
Or risk our children's future? Is the threat
Of promised pain of no concern? Hate strives
To stop us: Will we all of past forget?
Do we hide from our duty, with the fear
That there might be a price to what is right?
We know what must be done: It may appear
That we can wait, but should we withhold might?
All evil needs to triumph is for good
To turn away and not do what it should.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,petr.
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:25 PM

game set and match arne.
teribus and bb can go on stomping their little petulant feet.

even the republicans are asking for progress reports on Iraq and turning up the heat on Bush & Cheney.
silly me, you mean to tell me they werent getting any progress reports?

one has to wonder about Bush's ability to govern when he never even asked Jay Garner the viceroy of Iraq, 'so just how are things going over there?' and replaced him with an idiot whose first act was to disband
the Iraqi army WITH their WEAPONS! - instantly creating a cadre of unemployed and embittered armed young men.

even BUsh's own hubris caught up with him when pissed of the right wing base by nominating Harriet Miers to the supreme court. Hey doesnt every supreme court nominee deserve an up or down vote? not if shes Harriet Myers..

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:32 PM

"Since DESERT FOX, we've had over 70 no-fly zone violations with well over 100 Iraqi aircraft involved, and there's been almost 20 incidents of missile firings at our planes, AAA firings and radar illuminations in that same period of time.

What we're seeing now is an increase in frequency, intensity, [and] coordination of their entire air defense system against our planes flying in both the north and the south.

We are seeing, for example, almost three times the number of surface-to-air missile batteries in the southern area, and movement of these surface-to-air missile batteries on occasion, which obviously makes it more difficult for our flyers to know where they are and where the threat may be posed.

You all know, I believe, that the anti-air defense system is composed not only of aircraft, fighters that would come down and engage planes, but also the surface-to-air missiles, AAA batteries, radars, early warning means, and communications. It's evident to us that this entire system has been centrally controlled and turned on to oppose our enforcement of the no-fly zone sanctions, both north and south.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/1999/t01251999_t0125znn.html

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:36 PM

BB:

Arne,

[Arne]: "As Blix's team reported, claims of remanent SCUDs were chicken$hit...."


Ditto- no evidence.

Here ya go. Enjoy your McIntelligence....

And you have NEVER answered my question.

How will YOU explain that you would rather have all those people dead than ask that Saddam comply with his obligations?

I think I did. Tons of dead in Iraq right now (and more and more every day). You need to balance that against the hypothetical dead in your "fallacy of bifurcation" scenario of "doing nothing" or the same under the various alternative scenarios, such as when Saddam agress to step down, inspectors or U.N. peacekeepers keep watch, etc.... All I can say is that the only real deaths we know about are the ones we brought on; the rest is just speculation. And if we hadn't invaded, even if there were deaths, they wouldn't have been of our doing, and in my mind that counts for a bit as well....

Proud of all the dead that NOT making Saddam comply for all those years caused? Proud of encouraging a war?

I think you're mistaken here, Bruce: My name is Arne, not Donald "shake Saddam's hand" Rumsfeld or the Reagan/Bush I administration or the Republicans in Congress that refused to put sanctions on Iraq back at the end of the '80s because he was "our guy" ... during an equally pointeless pissing contest with the Evil Iranians (who apparently were nonetheless not sufficiently evil to preclude giving them Hawk missiles, if you take the Reagan view of things....).

But, believe me, Bruce, if I do ever encourage a war, and it turns to s**** like this, I'll be one of the first to apologise for my mistake afterwards instead of saying "Lah, lah, lah, I can't heeeaaaarrrr yyyoooouuuuuu!" and refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of my acts. Fair 'nuff???

Clear now?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:51 PM

Arne,

That still does NOT account for the missing scuds- it just shows that we were NOT able to find them. So, where are they? You seem to think that multi-million dollar scuds would just be lost track of, so we should ignore that Saddam still had them. The UN reports says they are not accounted for- where is the ACCOUNTING for them, if you insist they are "chicken$hit"?

I still hold YOU and those who did not demand that saddam comply to be guilty of causing THIIS war, by encouraging Saddam to think he did not need to worry about any consequences to his actions. You have the blood on your hands.

"But, believe me, Bruce, if I do ever encourage a war, and it turns to s**** like this, I'll be one of the first to apologise for my mistake afterwards instead of saying "Lah, lah, lah, I can't heeeaaaarrrr yyyoooouuuuuu!" and refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of my acts. Fair 'nuff???"

Fair enough. I am waiting for you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 06:25 PM

I feel fairly sure you're barking up not only the wrong tree, BB, but that it might be a sunflower in a different part of the garden altogether.

It is action, not speech or thought, that comes under the scrutiny of public accountability. Anyone who knows the United States at all knows that we encourage -- or used to -- public dialogue, open comparison of views and the right to speak or not about anything as a core civic right.

To then turn around and say that those who did not participate in UN negotiations with Saddam by individually making demands is abit lopsided and, like your navel, holds little water.

Private citizens in this country are MORE bound to exercise freedom of speech, I suggest, than they are to line up vocally behind one or another foreign policy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:37 PM

"FACT- The President of the United Sates of America does not need the sanction of anybody to act in, what ever he and his administartion believe to be, the best interestsof the United Sates of America. End of Story" (Teribus)

Ahhhhh, where exactly did you come up with that crap, T...??? This is about the most rediculous statement that you have ever made... Maybe you would like to expand on yer interpretation of internation law that is superceeded by one man and his croonies diesire to go off attackin' other folk's countries... This is precisely how WW II began...

Yeah, I'll be eagerly awaiting yer squirm on this "FACT... End of story" as will many here in Mudville...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 10:13 PM

Ah, finally, Teribus, we meet on the field of battle (well, just the field of debate). I have to say that , like some other posters, I'm disappointed in the new Teribus incarnation. I had to grudgingly admire the old Teribus, who was the only Bush apologist actually capable of defending his policies with fact and logic (though I didn't agree). As I have remarked elsewhere, it was indeed ironic that the only remotely sensible Bush apologist was not American. None of the American pro-Bush posters ever made any attempt to make sense--they were all full of sound, fury, and sophistry--and signifying......

However, you unfortunately are just a feeble imitation of that earlier Teribus. Something must have happened.

Now to business.

If the president of the US needs nobody's sanction he has to face the consequences if he does act on his own. There are a few little problems:

1) To declare war he needs Congress' approval (except possibly in your fantasy world)--I wonder why that's why the Iraq war is not officially a war. Or perhaps you'll enlighten us as to when that declaration of war took place. (We know when the declaration of victory was---before most of the "Coalition" soldiers were killed.)


2) The main point you ignore is that the violation of UN sanctions and resolutions is the excuse given by several Bush apologists ( on Mudcat, even!) for the invasion. Sorry, that won't fly--the US never had UN authority to invade Iraq. You can cite violations of UN sanctions and resolutions forever--it does not change the fact that the UN never gave the US authority to invade Iraq. This is the main point you consistently--and conveniently--dodge---------and the crux of the matter.




But now we have Bruce, who says the US did have the authority.

OK Bruce--against all evidence you obviously have convinced yourself--I'm sure that you and Teribus, who delight in quoting UN resolutions ad nauseam, will be so good as to to quote exactly the UN resolution in which the UN ceded its own authority to the US and blessed the invasion of Iraq. Direct quote please--including number of resolution, exact wording and date. Exactly when was this resolution?

However, I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 10:32 PM

BB: That still does NOT account for the missing scuds- it just shows that we were NOT able to find them.

Objection, your honour, assumes facts not in evidence.

Ummmm, BB, there weren't any. Hope that clears things up.

I still hold YOU and those who did not demand that saddam comply to be guilty of causing THIIS war, by encouraging Saddam to think he did not need to worry about any consequences to his actions. You have the blood on your hands.

LOL. Can you say "projection", Bruce? My, that's a big word. But I know you can. I sleep like a baby, Bruce. From your tenor here, I suspect you can't say the same ... bet it's getting pretty uncomfortable in that noggin of your with your conscience getting squeezed into the corners by your limbic system....

That's quite a ... -- ummmm, "unique" -- argument there, even for a Dubya apologist. Ranks right up there with the current nimber one hit on the RNC "spin machine" hit parade: the "The Democrats wer just as stoopid as us" excuse....

[Arne]: ... and refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of my acts. Fair 'nuff???"

Fair enough. I am waiting for you to do so.

Ummmm, Brucie, I doubt that Saddam wasn't paying much attention to me. But I wasn't the one cheerleading a war, either. Think you're going to lay the blame for the carnage in Iraq on me? That's the most absurd thing I think you've sadi here, and I'm suprised you'd commmit such stoopidity to print.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:01 AM

Arne - "Seems to me that if he went after the Kurds and Shia with helicopters, we might be able to claim we were acting within that (imposed) mandate in shooting such down. Whether there was some exception made for helicopters being used for non-military purpose is something that I can't claim knowledge on. But I'll hardly take your word for it."

Don't take my word for it, the following is from the "Declassified Transcript" of the meeeting held in Safwan on 3rd March, 1991 between Norman Schwarzkopf, leader of the coalition forces, and Iraqi General Sultan Hashim Ahmed.

The crucial exchange began when Ahmad told Schwarzkopf, "Helicopter flights sometimes are needed to carry some of the officials, government officials or any members....needed to be transported from one place to another because the roads and
bridges are out."

Schwarzkopf then told Ahmad how to mark helicopters to avoid being
shot at.
   
Ahmad: "This has nothing to do with the front line. This is inside
Iraq."
   
Schwarzkopf: "As long as it is not over the part we are in, that is
absolutely no problem. So we will let the helicopters, and that is a very important point, and I want to make sure that's recorded, that military helicopters can fly over Iraq. Not fighters, not bombers."
   
Ahmad: "So you mean even the helicopters. . . armed in the Iraqi skies can fly. But not the fighters? Because the helicopters are the same. they transfer somebody...."
   
Schwarzkopf: "Yeah. I will instruct our Air Force not to shoot at any helicopters that are flying over the territory of Iraq where we are not located. If they must fly over the area we are located in, I prefer that they not be gunships, armed helos, and I would prefer that they have an orange tag on the side--as an extra safety measure."
   
Ahmad: "Not to have any confusion, these will not come to this
territory."
   
Schwarzkopf: "Good"

OK Arne - "I will instruct our Air Force not to shoot at any helicopters that are flying over the territory of Iraq where we are not located." - Is that clear enough for you? Or does it have to be explained further.


On to some other points Arne made:

Arne..."Ummm, just what has Dubya done in Darfur? Oh, yeah, sorry, silly me, the Sudan doesn't have oil, billions in "reconstruction" money for Cheney's company, and a land-based 'aircraft carrier' in the middle of the Middle East."

Well actually, Arne the province of Darfur does have oil, sufficient for French, Chinese and Indian oil companies to be extremely interested in the region. Now the Muslim Government of Sudan, find it a trifle inconvenient that that area is populated by non-muslin Africans and that if only they can be presuaded to move then they lose any claim to a portion of the potential revenue. Enter the Government sponsored, supported and armed Janjaweed Militia. Over 180,000 people have been killed in Darfur and over 2 million displaced, all this having been done by Sudanese Army or by the Janjaweed Militia. A muslin atrocity, that Aljazeeera failed to report because they thought that it would upset their listeners. Just over a year ago, the UN declared the situation in Darfur was the most serious humanitarian crisis facing the international community. In the intervening 12 months or so Arne, what has the UN done? The US have accused the Sudanese Government of carrying out a policy of genocide against the inhabitants of Darfur, and the UN refused to acknowledge that - because if the UN accepted that premise, by their charter they would have to act. The UN's normal mode of operation is to hide behind the articles of their charter in such a way that they can get away with doing nothing.

Arne, if you are in the habit of saying, "I'll punch your lights out" when you've had too much in the bar and are feeling surly, don't be too surprised if someone takes that statement for what it is, a clear declaration of intent, and lands one on you. Right, Arne?

There are a whole rake of things that are acknowledged internationally as "hostile acts", or "acts of aggression". Such as a submarine surfacing in front of a merchant ship, illuminating a military aircraft with a fire control radar is definitely one, and one that, in the interests of self preservation, the pilot of the aircraft has to respond to immediately (By the way, I said military aircraft as they are equipped with sensors to detect such radars, civil aircraft do not).

Now let's see what you do acknowledge:

"I don't deny that turning on a radar and illuminating the target is a precursor to actually firing a missile in an attempt to bring down a plane, but that hardly makes it the same category of "act of aggression" - it is Arne, internationally recognised as such.

You then go on to say, in combination with your statement above:

"Now I'll admit that the Iraqis did (at least from U.S. reports) fire on some U.S. planes, but as I've pointed out repeatedly, none were ever brought down, nor any pilots hurt."

Hey Arne - Just what in your book does constitute an act of aggression - you would permit the targeting of your aircraft, you would permit someone to actually fire at your aircraft - and you appear to only recognise that you have been attacked as you drift to earth suspended from your parachute, if you have been lucky enough to survive the engagement. Absolutely ludicrous Arne.

Bobert - 18 Nov 05 - 07:37 PM

What international law prevents any country from acting unilaterally, if it perceives itself or its interests to be under threat? I know of none.

Ron Davies -

1. I believe that both the Senate and the House of Representatives authorised use of military force in Iraq.

2. If any country believes that it is threatened, its national interests are threatened, its allies are threatened it does not require permission from anybody to act - UN included.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 07:40 AM

Teribus et al.--

1) If you think that authorizing force is the same as declaring war, you are sadly mistaken. It only is giving the president authority to use his good judgment. Good judgment, we have found to our everlasting sorrow, is the ultimate oxymoron when used in connection with Mr. Bush.   I have said this before on Mudcat, and suggested that if Kerry had pointed it out, he likely would have won the election. He missed a great opportunity.


Even before the vote to authorize force, in my opinion we had enough evidence not to trust Mr. Bush to make a reasoned decision--and I would never have even voted to authorize him to use force--which I said at the time. As I've said before, I predicted that every picture of a dead Iraqi woman or child broadcase on al-Jazeera would result in more terrorism all over the world--and as a registered Republican (albeit one who did not vote for Mr. Bush), I called the White House line to tell them this .

Now we are indeed reaping the whirlwind.

Also, according to MSNBC "Last May CIA analysts produced an assessment of how the Iraq war would affect global terrorism... A counterterrorism official, who did not want to be named because he was discussing classified matters, says the report's conclusion is that defeat of the the insurgency would unleash experienced, capable and vengeful terrorists on the rest of the world, and particularly the United States. Those terrorists who survive...will be the fittest and the smartest--and they'll be looking for new battlegrounds."

Mr. Bush showed his intellectual stature and his judgment again in declaring (unilaterally again) war against terrorism--a war which by definition can never be won. But of course this does give him a free hand to restrict what Americans consider their rights--very useful for him----so perhaps that's the method to his madness.

I did feel that it was reasonable to strike back at bin Laden in Afghanistan. But just from reading the Wall St. Journal (that well-known leftist rag) I had enough evidence to realize that Bush's case for war in Iraq was not established--and there would be severe consequences.




2) Still waiting for that direct citation of exactly when the UN ceded its authority to the US regarding Iraq---- (of course, with date, exact quote, and precise UN resolution which the UN declared the US could enforce without further UN participation.)

Hope you can find time in your busy life of shadowboxing to enlighten us on this point.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 07:46 AM

"broadcast"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:28 AM

Amos,

"To then turn around and say that those who did not participate in UN negotiations with Saddam by individually making demands is abit lopsided and, like your navel, holds little water."

So, I can depend on you to get those people off my back who keep accusing ME of being responsible for the people killed in Iraq? Or is it only those you agree with that get the benefit of "Anyone who knows the United States at all knows that we encourage -- or used to -- public dialogue, open comparison of views and the right to speak or not about anything as a core civic right." I guess MY opinion is just not as worthy of discussion as those you agree with.



"BB: That still does NOT account for the missing scuds- it just shows that we were NOT able to find them.

Objection, your honour, assumes facts not in evidence.

Ummmm, BB, there weren't any. Hope that clears things up."

I have already POSTED the UN report on this- try actually reading instead of making up things. WHO SAID there weren't any? Blix says he cannot say, as SADDAM had refused to cooperate and tell him where they were, or what had happened to them. Oh, I forget, there was no NEED for his cooperation, according to you: The inspectors had super powers and could find anything without even knowing how many had been made.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:31 AM

OK BB--

Where's that direct quote of exactly when the UN ceded its authority to enforce UN resolutions to the US?

Still waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:33 AM

Arne,

"I sleep like a baby, Bruce."

No concience at all, then?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:01 AM

Ritter wrote: "The Special Commission was created for the purpose of disarming Iraq. As part of the Special Commission team, I have worked to achieve a simple end: the removal, destruction or rendering harmless of Iraq's proscribed weapons. The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed ... UNSCOM has good reason to believe that there are significant numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today ... Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years through systematic acts of concealment. It was for the purpose of uncovering Iraq's mechanism of concealment, and in doing so gaining access to hidden weapons components and weapons programs, that you created a dedicated capability to investigate Iraq's concealment activities, which I have had the privilege to head."

Furthermore, on September 7, 1998, approximately one month prior to United Nations weapons inspectors' ejection from Iraq, in testimony to the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee, [28] Scott Ritter was asked by John McCain (R, AZ) whether UNSCOM had intelligence suggesting that Iraq had assembled the components for three nuclear weapons and all that it lacked was the fissile material. Ritter replied: "The Special Commission has intelligence information, which suggests that components necessary for three nuclear weapons exists, lacking the fissile material. Yes, sir." As Paul Leventhal, head of the Nuclear Control Institute remarked in response to Ritter's statement,[29] "Iraq could be only days or weeks away from having nuclear weapons if it acquires the needed plutonium or bomb-grade uranium on the black market or by other means." Ritter also said that, absent UNSCOM, Iraq could reconstruct its chemical and biological weapons programs in six months, as well as its missile program. He said that Iraq had a plan for achieving a missile breakout within six months of receiving the signal from Saddam Hussein.

It is unclear what Scott Ritter believes happened to that capability he said Saddam Hussein had in 1998 as compared to that capability he believes Saddam Hussein had after the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, considering United Nations weapons inspectors were absent from Iraq from 1998 to 2002.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:11 AM

Charles Duelfer made the statement that "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to warrant further investigation. ... ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ... Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials." [45]

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:12 AM

A United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on weapons was established, to monitor Iraq's compliance with restrictions on weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. Iraq accepted some and refused other weapons inspections. The team found some evidence of biological weapons programs at one site and non-compliance at many other sites.

In 1997, Iraq expelled all U.S. members of the inspection team, alleging that the United States was using the inspections as a front for espionage; members of UNSCOM were in regular contact with various intelligence agencies to provide information on weapons sites back and forth. The team returned for an even more turbulent time period between 1997 and 1999; one member of the weapons inspection team, U.S. Marine Scott Ritter, resigned in 1998, alleging that the Clinton administration was blocking investigations because they did not want a full-scale confrontation with Iraq. In 1999, the team was replaced by UNMOVIC, which began inspections in 2002. In 2002, Iraq — and especially Saddam Hussein — became targets in the United States' War on Terrorism, leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by the United States and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:13 AM

that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. If a war can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a cease-fire (such as Korea) could face war for failing to meet the conditions of the cease-fire. Such is the purpose of using a cease-fire agreement in place of a peace treaty; the resumption of war is the penalty for, and thus deterrent of, engaging in the prohibited action(s). For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951 and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952[102].

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:16 AM

One argument is that the United Nations itself, along with the three opponents of the Iraq War on the Security Council, France, Russia, and China, all benefited financially (in some cases, perhaps illegally) from transactions with the Saddam Hussein regime under the Oil for Food program; [105] and that the leaders of these three countries, along with Kofi Annan, fought against a second UN resolution not out of higher principle but in order to keep these contracts. Additionally, the resistance of the Security Council and the UN as a whole to the invasion of Iraq has been attributed to Anti-Americanism and a resentment of the cultural and economic dominance of the USA. In the case of France, it has also been attributed an attempt to court the Arab world and its local Muslim population. [106]

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:16 AM

Congratulations BB--you're a true Bush apologist--a master at dodging the question.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:37 AM

And your answer to MY question?

And where is the direct quote of exactly when the US ceded its authority to enforce the cease-fire?


I do not apologize for Bush: In the matter of invading Iraq, IMHO, he was correct. In a good many other matters, I do not agree, nor support him.

YOU are an antiwar apologist, trying to hide the blood on you for NOT making as much effort to persuade Saddam to comply with the UN and cease-fire resolutions as you seem willing to make to show how horrible someone you dislike is.

If the demonstrations before the US attack had demanded that Saddam comply, rather than that Bush NOT act, there would have been no war.

If Saddam had NOT been hiding prohibited programs, he would have opened his borders without resistance ( as per the cease-fire terms) and allowed the US and coalition troops in UNOPPOSED to look all they wanted.


IMHO. Of course, you do not seem to allow for anyone to HAVE an opinion that might be different from what YOU approve of.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: AKS
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:32 AM

Beats me how people ignore the most conclusive evidence against wmds in Iraq!! Has anyone heard of Israeli planes dropping bombs there lately??? I haven't...

AKS

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:46 AM

Once again, it comes down to faith. It's what you believe. The spin doctors are in control now. Either that, or luck. And you've turned over control of your TV sets to US!

Truth is up for grabs.

The next election possibly depends on what you believe... It's open ended

No period at the end of that sentence.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 03:59 PM

Meanwhile, the crucial hamster factor in the USA's decision to go to war in Iraq remains unreported and the hazards of snorting pickles continue to be downplayed by the mainstream media! It's all somebody's fault. And we are going to get to the bottom of it. Hell, yes.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,William Shatner
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:11 PM

300! Seen Boston Legal lately?

- Bill

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 04:54 AM

Ron Davies - 19 Nov 05 - 07:40 AM

"If you think that authorizing force is the same as declaring war, you are sadly mistaken" - irrelevant semantics.

The UN has authority to cede? That comes as a bit of a surprise. If it has any authority at all it has in the sixty years of its existence been very parsimonious in the exercising of it, to the detriment of that organisations reputation and the poor and oppressed of this world.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 06:59 AM

Teribus et al.--

If you cannot cite precisely a UN resolution stating that the US had authority to enforce UN resolutions and sanctions without further UN participation, then kindly refrain from quoting UN resolutions as a justification for the war in Iraq.

If they are UN resolutions, it is up to the UN--AND NOBODY ELSE--to enforce them.

Also, since it seems to be still very much the fashion to bash the UN (interestingly, both the left and right seem to do it)--I would like to point out, yet again, that Bush likely owes his 2004 election to the UN. Without the UN's function as an honest broker, there probably would have been no Iraqi government til long after the 2004 election. It was Bush's ability to point to Allawi as head of that government--not Bremer--that allowed his claim of a specifically Iraqi opposition to the insurgency----and gave the lie to Mudcatters and others who were confidently predicting Vietnam Quaqmire Part II.

The reprise of Vietnam may yet happen---but obviously, not til after the 2004 election.

Bush apologists should thank the UN every day.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:03 AM

"Quagmire"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:28 AM

Ron,

Just one point that you seem to have missed, the myriad of resolutions passed by the UN Security Council relate to Iraq and detail what Iraq's obligations were.

As BB has taken great pains to mention and illustrate by quoting chapter and verse. The 1991 Gulf War ended not with a Peace Treaty or Peace accord, it ended with a Ceasefire agreement. Iraq under the governance of Saddam Hussein singularly failed to meet its obligations upon which that Ceasefire Agreement was based - hence previous state of hostilities may be resumed by ANY of the former allies.

Having gone to the UN and having persuaded them to issue Iraq with one last chance to comply fully with the requirements of new resolution 1441 and all previous resolutions, the Government of the United States of America, stated in the clearest possible terms, that ANY material breach would result in serious consequences for Iraq, the US Government made no pretense that what IT meant by serious consequences WAS military intervention to remove Saddam Hussein from power and to ensure that Iraq no longer could pose a threat to the peace of the region.

There were in fact seven material breaches of 1441.

As you seem so convinced of it, perhaps you can indicate the UNSC Resolution prohibiting the US from taking military action - there isn't one - the UN does not have anything like the authority you fondly suppose it has.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:34 AM

BB:

Charles Duelfer made the statement that "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, ...

Anything like the really great stuff we got from "Curveball" or al-Libi, perchance?

... and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved.

Ditto last comment.

In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to warrant further investigation. ... ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ...

OK, BB, what to you infer from that?

Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.

Don't know why you quote this, Bruce. It just make you look like a paranoid eedjit.

However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials." [45]

And they were unable to rule out definitively the possibility that the Federated States of Micronesia have been secretly stockpiling nukes either. So to be on the safe side, why don't we just roll into Syria ASAP (hell, if Dubya gets a do-over, maybe he can manage not to f*** it up so completely), and then on and on and on and on around the world until every single nation that is not 'Murkah is given the sweet taste of our "democracy" just in case they have nukes and are pointing them at your own bedroom, Bruce....

You know, I think that I know what happened here: Dubya just loved Randy Newman's song "Political Science" when he was living his life of dissipation in his 20's ... but Dubya just didn't twig to Newman's rather high-brow form of humour (I think Newman may have been targetting mainly more than double digit IQs).

And FWIW, Brue, the U.S. knows precisely where an enormous quantity of WoMDs are stored. At U.S. military bases.

For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951 and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952[102].

Ummm, missed the part in my history books where we lost 90% of our casualties post-surrender. "Quagmire Accomplished, Commander Condpiece!" Do tell, Bruce.

If Saddam had NOT been hiding prohibited programs, he would have opened his borders without resistance (as per the cease-fire terms) and allowed the US and coalition troops in UNOPPOSED to look all they wanted.

Problem with your logic here, Bruce: Despite the hallucinations of Dubya to the contrary (or was Dubya lyingdid comply.

IMHO. Of course, you do not seem to allow for anyone to HAVE an opinion that might be different from what YOU approve of.

Oh, you can have any "opinion" you want. But when you spout nonsense, we're going to point that out. That's how free speech works, Bruce. "Free speech" isn't Dubya twisting the arms of the networks to get his political stump speeches broadcast for free, pretending he's actually saying something worthwhile. Sepaking of which, any clue why Dubya thinks the same ol' speech, retreaded for the fourth or fifth time, is going to get different results (a notion you seem possessed of as well)? Isn't that the classic definition of stoopidity?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:45 AM

Teribus--

Your powers of observation seem to be quickly deteriorating. I never once claimed that the UN had a resolution prohibiting the US from taking unilateral action. Just recognize that it was in fact unilateral action--and did NOT have the blessing of the UN.


Bush apologists, on the other hand, are still, with absolutely no support from the UN itself ever, claiming the enforcement of UN resolutions as a prime justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Since you seem a little slow this morning I will repeat:

If...they... are...UN...resolutions,...it...is.....up..to...the...UN...AND...NOBODY...ELSE.... to...enforce...them.



Also, what about my point about the 2004 election?   Have you thanked the UN yet today?
Time's a-wastin'.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 08:36 AM

THE CURVEBALL SAGA
How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball'
The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.

By Bob Drogin and John Goetz, Special to The Times

BERLIN — The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.

Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm.

"This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said."

The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. "He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy," said a BND official who supervised the case. "He is not a completely normal person," agreed a BND analyst.

Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar U.S. accusations that Baghdad had biological weapons, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year. The commission did not interview Curveball, who still insists his story was true, or the German officials who handled his case.

(LA Times)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:55 AM

Ron,

OK the UN had NO resolution in place prohibiting the US from taking unilateral action.

In line with his responsibilities and on the best advice of his security advisors, intelligence agencies and the Senate Committee on Security. The President of the United States of America acted to serve the national interests of his country, and of his country's allies in the middle east. Just so that we get this clearly understood Ron - He did not need to get any blessing or permission from any other body, national or international to do that.

Since you seem a little slow this morning I will ask:

As...they...were...UN...resolutions,...when...was.....the..UN...going...to...do....anything.... to...enforce...them......and....with....what?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:20 AM

In line with his responsibilities and on the best advice of his security advisors, intelligence agencies and the Senate Committee on Security. The President of the United States of America acted to serve the national interests of his country

He breached hundreds of years of constraint and balance in foreign policy by launching a unilateral pre-emptive invasion on under-assessed, badly flawed intell. Hundreds of people all over the country saw through the smoke screen, recognizing the illogics in the so-called rationalization. His justification was that the flawed intelligence might have been true. That's just dumb. It is ESPECIALLY stupid when considering a major historic act of violence and dismemberment, ruining human lives and wastingn ational resources on a huge scale. But, regardless of the import, he went ahead and signed off marching orders which have produced the most gruesome timeline the country has seen since LBJ and Nixon were alive.

You would think, considering such a major reversal of our long-standing foreign policy and principals, and standing in contemplation of an act of such mayhem and violence, he would double and triple check his sources and evaluate the information from them with care.

But he didn't.

Stupid? If not, he's psycho.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,hobie
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:54 AM

I can well believe that WMDs were found in Iraq. You know why? Because in just the past 6 months I have found the Fountain of Youth, Jesus, the Meaning of Life, the definition of "folk music", a cure for belly button lint, AND...Jimmy Hoffa!

If I, an ordinary guy, can do all of that, well, I'm sure the USA could easily have found some WMDs in Iraq, right?

Makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 11:09 AM

Teribus:

[Dubya] acted to serve the national interests of his country, ...

You misspelled "his own political interests". Remember Andrew Card's (unintentionally revealing) comment about when you roll out new models?

... and of his country's allies in the middle east.

Ummm, you mean the 'good guys' like "Bandar Bush"? You know, I really can't think of too many of Dubya's allies in the middle east that came out in favour of the invasion. But maybe Israel thought it a great idea. Refresh my memory: Who else there was all "rah, rah" for Dubya's war-mongering?

OK the UN had NO resolution in place prohibiting the US from taking unilateral action.

Glad to see you admit the U.N. didn't sanction Dubya's little war.

The U.N. (and treaties) are generally against the idea of aggressive wars (pre-emption has still to become accepted as a valid form of diplomacy). Only under exceptional circumstances would they approve of such. This was not such an occasion.

Just so that we get this clearly understood Ron - He did not need to get any blessing or permission from any other body, national or international to do that.

Sez you. But YANAL. In fact, your 'opinion' here ain't worth the paper the Iraq constitution is printed on.

As...they...were...UN...resolutions,...when...was.....the..UN...going...to...do....anything.... to...enforce...them......and....with....what?

Ummm, with what they decide, if they decide that circumstances warrant. Seeing as the inspectors, contrary to Dubya's hallucinations, were in Iraq and doing their job -- for some reason totally strange and unfathomable to Republicans, their sycophants, and the 101st Fighting Keyboarder chickenhawks -- the U.N. thought this peaceful resolution should play out, and refused to back Dubya's 'rush to war'... to the sorrow of Cindy Sheehan and two thousand other mothers.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 05:59 PM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 06:00 PM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 07:36 PM

Oh, I've got an identity, and have never been afraid to state my opinions openly (when my cookie stays put) - and certainly not afraid to state them in front of you. As for the ability to have a discussion... sorry, you are incapable.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:05 PM

Arne Langsetmo is as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

He needs to study history before he can relate history.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:08 PM

Hey, like what is this all about, Amos???...

Looks like the German intellegence community is standin' up to last weeks proclaimation by the Bushites that every intellegence community in the world agreed that Saddam had WMD's...

Yeah, 5 German intellegence folks stood up yesterday and said and said, "Bullsh*t!!!" But they went well beyond that in stating that they went out of their way to tell the US intellegence folks that "Curveball' didn't know Jack from Jill and that he was a nut case who shouldn't be taken seriously...

SO LET'S DO A LITTLE REVIEW...

So the evidence that was used to get us into Iraq-mire came from:

1. Curveball, alias nutball

2. Chalabi, alias "hadn't-been-in-Iraq-in-20-years" and

3. A blatently forged document in possession of Mr. Blair...

(????????????????????????????????????????????????????)

Any other reasons???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:27 PM

I think there are two different factions who wanted war in Iraq. I think there is a faction who wanted Iraq to become Balkanized, and another faction who wanted to establish and keep a long-term US presence in Iraq for the purpose of establishing control over Iraqi oil. I think both factions were working together before, and that's why there was almost a complete media blackout of any news that didn't put the war in a good light for the first year or so. I think that the faction that wants Iraq balkanized is agitating in the mainstream media now about the problems in Iraq so that the US will pull out, thus rendering Iraq completely helpless in the face of civil war, and ultimate dissolution.

I don't know what the right course of action would be for the US at this point, but I don't think I feel particularly comfortable with either of the agendas I've described above. Rock and a hard place, looks like to me.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:40 PM

OK the UN had NO resolution in place prohibiting the US from taking unilateral action.

Actually, this is not correct. The very same resolution the US has been using as its justification for the invasion, specifically binds the US as well as all other member nations to honor the sovereignty and borders of the Iraqi nation, and to not interfere in the UN inspectors' ability to do their job. By invading, the US forced the inspectors to leave Iraq, and the invasion was a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and borders. Because of its invasion of Iraq, the US is in violation of the very resolution it has been using to justify the invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:49 PM

Geoduck: Arne Langsetmo is as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

Remind me to turn down your Yuletide invitation, GD. We prolly have better fare at our place, even with the fabled lutefisk on the table.

Other that that, were you saying something? I'm on a long-distance connection from India this week, and the connection was terrible. All I heard was a loud buzzing....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:26 AM

Very disappointing GUEST,Arne Langsetmo, your post of 21 Nov 05 - 11:09 AM, is mostly spin.

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

Look at the date Arne, it's rather important.

So Arne, you can't think of any US allies in the region apart from Israel, and you can't think of any country in the middle east supporting US military intervention. If that is the case Arne you just can't think.

US required no sanction from the UN, or anybody else.

Pre-emption has been accepted as a valid strategy for defence for decades, international diplomacy has recognised it as a reality for an equal length of time.

In fact, Arne my 'opinion' here is worth as much as yours.


I thought the reply to my question was hilarious - must have been the result of all that background noise and jet-lag:

"As...they...were...UN...resolutions,...when...was.....the..UN...going...to...do....anything....to...enforce...them......and....with....what?"

Please provide examples of what the UN had decided, between April 1991 and June 2002, with regard to resolutions relating to Iraq, particularly the one relating to the release and return of 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted, taken to Iraq and imprisoned in 1990. Now whereas WMD and other stuff could possibly wait a while, I would have thought as a primarily humanitarian organisation the UN would have really gone in to bat for these people - they didn't of course, only three were found alive subsequent to US action in March 2003 - Only 3, you see because Saddam had had the others killed.

The UN were never going to do anything - that is what the UN does best. The next thing the UN had on the agenda for Iraq was the removal of sanctions at the insistance of France, Germany, Russia and China - Oh, I forgot and George Galloway.

The UN has no resources, financial or material. It has nothing other than what member countries are prepared to offer in any given situation. It has absolutely no power and no authority beyond that with which it's member states are prepared to endow it with.

GUEST,hobie - 21 Nov 05 - 10:54 AM

Damn, still no news on Lord Lucan or Shergar then?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:51 PM

Teribus: Very disappointing GUEST,Arne Langsetmo, your post of 21 Nov 05 - 11:09 AM, is mostly spin.

Can you say "projection", Teribus? Good, I knew you could do it. Now we'll teach you what that big word means.....

And a BTW, Teribus: I'm not here to please you; you want that, you'll have to ask one of the swiftly dwindling number of c***sucking sycophant RWers here. Clear now?

Teribus digging back into the memory hole:

"STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Oh, yeah, one of those "sense of the Congress" thingies. That and a couple bucks will buy you a Starbucks cappuccino. The ol' "The Democrats were as stoopid as us" ploy. Quite the smackdown in forensics ttechnique. But note that Clinton didn't say that Saddam had nuclear weapons or that we'd blow a couple thousand U.S. soldiers' lives (plus a cool $2+ billion) tryign to occupy a Muslim country.....

So Arne, [...] you can't think of any country in the middle east supporting US military intervention. If that is the case Arne you just can't think.

Sheer rubbish, matey. You simply can't enumerate.

Pre-emption has been accepted as a valid strategy for defence for decades, international diplomacy has recognised it as a reality for an equal length of time.

Cites, please. Particularly those supporting the "I saw a hallucination" school of 'defence'....

In fact, Arne my 'opinion' here is worth as much as yours.

Every one is entitled to an opinion (just as they are entitled to a fair day in court). But your opinions are not entitled to a lack of derision, mainly because they're full'o'shite, and the most gruesomely misanthropic to boot. Perhaps you're of the opinion that anyone is entitled to attack any neighbour (or even non-neighbour, thousands of miles away) because they have paranoid, delusional hallucinations of some WoMD pointed at them (and I'm being charitable here, and assuming that the maladministration was just plain stoopid and incompetent and didn't lie to us all to further some rather different agenda), but fortunately most people in reasonable possession of their senses see such an act as a great (if not damnable) folly that would quickly turn the entire world into a hell-hole if everyone acted on such a rationale. You're just a tad on the up-hill slope of the bell curve here, Teribus. Do try to catch up.

Please provide examples of what the UN had decided, between April 1991 and June 2002, with regard to resolutions relating to Iraq, particularly the one relating to the release and return of 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted, taken to Iraq and imprisoned in 1990. Now whereas WMD and other stuff could possibly wait a while, I would have thought as a primarily humanitarian organisation the UN would have really gone in to bat for these people - they didn't of course, only three were found alive subsequent to US action in March 2003 - Only 3, you see because Saddam had had the others killed.

Quite the demand, when the U.S is in the process of "extraordinary rendition", Gulags in the former Soviet satellite states, revoking the Great Writ, and other crimes against human rights and humanity itself.

So Saddam (or his agents and army) killed a bunch of folks (keeping in mind that various stories, such as the "babies thrown out of incubators", were later found to be PR ploys by the United States and Kuwait). What do you want him to do? Bring the dead back to life???

The UN were never going to do anything - that is what the UN does best. The next thing the UN had on the agenda for Iraq was the removal of sanctions at the insistance of France, Germany, Russia and China - Oh, I forgot and George Galloway.

Gotta love how the eedjit Norm Coleman thought he'd have Galloway's a$$ ... but when Galloway showed up, he handed ol' Norm his own on a sterling platter.

You do know, of course, that KB&R (a Halliburton subsidiary) was doing illegal business in Iraq in the '90s? Guess the colour of anyone's money is the same to moral exemplars like Cheney.

The UN has no resources, financial or material.

Not true. But it doesn't help matters that the U.S. has been stiffing them on dues for many a year....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 06:11 PM

Oh! Dear! Arne, no wonder you completely ducked the points made in my last post.

Regime Change in Iraq - US Government Foreign Policy - The Iraq Liberation Act, October 31, 1998 - Bill Clinton.

No-one quibbled about meddling in the affairs of an independent sovereign nation?

No-one complained about this affecting the sterling efforts of the UNSCOM Inspection teams toiling away 'searching' for WMD in Iraq?

No UN approval, sanction, permission, blessing or co-operation when less than two months later Bill Clinton, without the approval of the Senate or House of Representatives, exercised his right as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces and ordered an attack on Iraq - otherwise known as Dessert Fox - The justification for this attack was Iraqi non-compliance with the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 681 - seemed to work, nobody was up in arms yelling at Clinton that he didn't have the right to do it.

Way back on Clinton's watch Iraq was identified as a threat, as the same people who arrived at that conclusion remained in place when GWB entered the White House, it is not surprising that they gave him the same advice - he accepted it, no reason not to, but NOT HIS IDEA.

US Allies in the middle-east, the only one that slowly meandered across that vast empty plain of Brain Arne was Israel. Not bad Arne, you got one. Now how about Kuwait, you know that little place from which the Invasion of Iraq was launched, the place that played host to around 250,000 of your countrymen in the lead up to March 2003. What about Saudi Arabia, oh and there's Bahrain, Qatar, and to a much, much lesser extent Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. It could even be argued that the Iranian stance adopted throughout was that of a benign neutrality, they certainly did not make any attempt to make things difficult for the US, which they could have done.

I don't have a clue what age you are Arne, but my guess is not too advanced in years. But if you ever did learn anything about things such as the 'Cold War', MAD, etc, you will be able to explain to all the nice people here what was meant by a nuclear power having a 'second strike capability' and why that was so important to have. At the same time you will be able to explain the established and acknowledged strategy that having a 'second strike' would effectively counter.

As to opinions, well in posting at least I do put forward an arguement and I do address points raised, something I note that you gave up doing a long time ago in this little exchange. What do we get from you - "But your opinions are not entitled to a lack of derision, mainly because they're full'o'shite, and the most gruesomely misanthropic to boot." That is a response to a point made in debate Arne? No it's only your opinion, expressed no doubt in the same manner that resulted in your departure from Dog Snot Diary, by the way I thought the Arne cartoons were hilarious.

One little parallel from History Arne, and you can ask your parents about it, your surname and the mention of Lutefisk for Christmas would probably make then Norwegian and from the West Coast of Norway, north of Bergen, probably up towards Trondheim or Lofoten. It has to do with one of your remarks -   

"Perhaps you're of the opinion that anyone is entitled to attack any neighbour (or even non-neighbour, thousands of miles away) because they have paranoid, delusional hallucinations of some WoMD pointed at them (and I'm being charitable here, and assuming that the maladministration was just plain stoopid and incompetent and didn't lie to us all to further some rather different agenda), but fortunately most people in reasonable possession of their senses see such an act as a great (if not damnable) folly that would quickly turn the entire world into a hell-hole if everyone acted on such a rationale."

Well Arne, you see, if the fortunate people in reasonable possession of their senses who were around in the period 1933 to 1935, had listened to a number of paranoid, delusional hallucinating people who were trying like hell to get all the reasonable people to believe that an ex-German Army Corporal, with an Army of less than 100,000 men, with no heavy weapons (artillery), no armour, no Air Force, and only a small coastal navy was intent on re-armament and conquest, and those people had done something about it when they had the chance - Your Mum and Dad would not have had to put up with that ex-Corporal's troops as unwelcome, non-paying guests for just over five years. But unfortunately most of the people in reasonable possession of their senses seemed to have followed the lead that you would have advocated in the case of Iraq. It was without any shadow of a doubt an act of catastrophic folly that did turn the entire world into a hell-hole for quite some time, it was called the Second World War - ask your parents how they enjoyed it and whether or not they thought that the people in reasonable possession of their senses, otherwise known as Quislings and Appeasers, got it right.

Arne's concern and comments regarding the sorrow of Cindy Sheehan and two thousand other mothers is plainly an attempt to stir emotion which for some reason he does not extend likewise to the 605 Kuwaiti Nationals abducted by Saddam. How did you refer to their suffering and ultimate fate Arne? -

"So Saddam killed a bunch of folks. What do you want him to do? Bring the dead back to life???"

A bit low, even for you Arne. But you see if you had been able to read, AND UNDERSTAND, some of the posts written by BB and myself, you would have known that had Saddam been complying with the terms of those resolutions as Amos, yourself, Bobert and all the other Saddam Apologists on this site would like us to believe he was, those Kuwaiti Nationals might still be alive.

With regard to sorting out the problems and crises of this world Arne the following statement is STILL TRUE:

"The UN has no resources, financial or material. It has nothing other than what member countries are prepared to offer in any given situation. It has absolutely no power and no authority beyond that with which it's member states are prepared to endow it with."

Cheers,

Going back to read some of your contributions at DSD

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 06:38 PM

So many statistics...so little time! Kato! Bring me my bound copies of the last 20 years of U.N. debates and decisions, and I will score verbal points that will reduce my foolish opponent(s) on this forum to stunned silence. Then they will finally realize that resistance is futile. *(spoken in the voice of Chief Inspector Clouseau)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 07:48 PM

Does yer dog bite???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 07:56 PM

Teribus:

You are an ass. I am no more a Saddam apologist than I am a grandmother.

Talk about distortion. Ptui.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 08:33 PM

A bit low, even for you Arne. But you see if you had been able to read, AND UNDERSTAND, some of the posts written by BB and myself, you would have known that had Saddam been complying with the terms of those resolutions as Amos, yourself, Bobert and all the other Saddam Apologists on this site would like us to believe he was, those Kuwaiti Nationals might still be alive.

...or if April Gilespie had said to Saddam, "the US would take it very badly" when he asked her how the US would respond if he decided to invade Kuwait, rather than "the US would not consider it any of its business". That right there could have saved a LOT of lives.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:37 PM

Teribus writes.
"Amos, yourself, Bobert and all the other Saddam Apologists on this site"
A typically arrogant and false "fact".
In the years that I have been reading and contributing to these threads, I have never seen anyone of any political persuasion support or apologise for the Saddam regime.
As most of the anti war people here could be characterised as "on the left", I think that most folks would see Teribus himself, with his militaristic views, as closer in spirit to Saddam than anyone on this forum.

As little hawk says all the arguments about resolutions are a load of garbage.
Right or wrong, and no matter how Teribus and Bruce squirm, the world now perceives Iraq to have been a serious mistake.
This is what is important, the World now sees the lie of western "democracy". The world now understands that the West has an agenda, and is prepared to kill in large numbers to attain that agenda.

What troubles Teribus and Bruce is that the coalition in Iraq have lost the battle for "hearts and minds", not only in Iraq but worldwide.

They can bumble on about resolutions and Iraqi history till they're blue in the face and all the rest of us die of boredom, but even the American and British govts know they have lost the trust of the people who elected them and the game is over.

They are attempting to turn control of Iraq over to the Shia, who are forging stronger and stronger links with Iran...Does that sound like a more stable ,more democratic country...not to me it dosen't.

The truth is that any supposed objectives that have been achieved in Iraq, like the "free" elections and much praised constitution have simply facilitated the birth of an Islamic Republic, something I and others here have warned of since before the war began.

Teribus and Bruce are more concerned with winning obscure debating points than in trying to understand what is really happening in Iraq.    I think they have much in common with Bush and Blair..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:49 PM

Amen, Ake...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:06 PM

Teribus:

No-one quibbled about meddling in the affairs of an independent sovereign nation?

Actually, some did. I was not thrilled with the Tomahawking of Iraq in 1993, nor the 1998 Desert Fox. COme to think of it, there were tons of Republicans that were incensed with 1998 .... fancy that.

But I'd note that "sense of the Congress" resolutions are far different from actually bombing someone, much less an armed invasion and occupation killiong many thousadns of people many of them civilians.

No-one complained about this affecting the sterling efforts of the UNSCOM Inspection teams toiling away 'searching' for WMD in Iraq?

Actually, some did. But not the PTB in the U.S. (executive or legislative). In fact, the inspectors withdrew at Clinton's request, not because Saddam kicked them out (as the likes of Dubya seem to believe and even more want you to believe .... for some reason).

Way back on Clinton's watch Iraq was identified as a threat, as the same people who arrived at that conclusion remained in place when GWB entered the White House, it is not surprising that they gave him the same advice - he accepted it, no reason not to, but NOT HIS IDEA.

The ol' "We're As Stoopid As Clinton" defence is in full flower, IC. You must have gotten your RNC "talking points" memo. But you're simply wrong about it being Clinton's idea to invade Iraq. That came from Dubyas' masters in the PNAC community and their famous memo. Clarke has talked about this, as have Wilkerson and others. It was a whole new game for them, and how they jumped for joy on Sept. 11th....

Now how about Kuwait, you know that little place from which the Invasion of Iraq was launched, the place that played host to around 250,000 of your countrymen in the lead up to March 2003. What about Saudi Arabia, oh and there's Bahrain, Qatar, and to a much, much lesser extent Egypt, Jordan and Turkey.

Oh, BS. At least in GW1, the Kuwaitis offered a token amount of their own troops to help free their country (although, if they had done the thing is typical Kuwaiti fashion, they would have hired mercenaries from SE Asian countries to do the dirty work that is beneath them....

[Iran] certainly did not make any attempt to make things difficult for the US, which they could have done.

When your enemy's shooting himself in the foot, you don't stop him. Say, that all worked out wonderfully for the Iranians, eh?

I don't have a clue what age you are Arne, but my guess is not too advanced in years.

You could have saved yourself some typing and stopped after the first five words.

But if you ever did learn anything about things such as the 'Cold War', MAD, etc, ...

Can you sing "Duuuck ... and coooverrrr..."? But I've read York, Kahn, Rhodes, and whole raft of other books on the subject. Stategery aside, fact remains that the U.S. retains a whole s***load of WoMD. I note you don't dispute it; you simply try to brush it off ... curious tactic for one who complains that I'm "ducking the points"....

What do we get from you - "But your opinions are not entitled to a lack of derision, mainly because they're full'o'shite, and the most gruesomely misanthropic to boot." That is a response to a point made in debate Arne?

Oh, sorry, Teribus, shame on me for trying to stay on point in responding to your assertion that you may have opinions too.

But unfortunately most of the people in reasonable possession of their senses seemed to have followed the lead that you would have advocated in the case of Iraq.

Actually, it was the Republicans and their friends in the American Bunds that were most isolationist (if not openly suggesting that we ought to throw in with Hitler). Do keep that in mind when you think there's a lot of "moral clarity" in world politics.

But FWIW, although it was near-call with Hitler, it's neither certain that efforts to rerun history and say that early intervention in the early '30s would have made a difference (and more than that, a difference for the good) in the long run, nor certain that such policies would be better from a moral perspective. Sometimes we need a watershed event to wake us up, even if that may be near fatal to us. One thing that someone with a bit more rational mind might glean from the Nazi era, though, is that it is dangerous (if sometimes nonetheless the moral position) to allow a country to become very militarised, very aggressive, and to go around occupying other countries. Yes, in such cases, if you wait long enough, the price of removing the cancer of such a country may be immense in blood and sorrow ... but sometimes it may need to be done, when that country has finally slid down into fascism and oppression and started their rampage across the world. Bet that little point is going to zip right over your head.....

... they thought that the people in reasonable possession of their senses, otherwise known as Quislings and Appeasers, ...

Quisling was a Nazi lickspittle, not an appeaser. His name is forever linked with treason and infamy.

You want "appeasers", try the RW Republicans in the U.S., OK?

Arne's concern and comments regarding the sorrow of Cindy Sheehan and two thousand other mothers is plainly an attempt to stir emotion which for some reason.

Which, of course, is lost on you. See my comment that you took offence to above about "opinions".

But you see if you had been able to read, AND UNDERSTAND, some of the posts written by BB and myself, you would have known that had Saddam been complying with the terms of those resolutions as Amos, yourself, Bobert and all the other Saddam Apologists on this site would like us to believe he was, those Kuwaiti Nationals might still be alive.

First, I don't know who they were or even if they existed (see the Rendon Group's fine wormk on the incubator babies). Second, any missing from the 1990 occupation and GW1 may have been long dead. Yes, it's terrible they got killed, and if Saddam had them killed, he ought to stand trial for it (would you say the same for the tortured and killed in Afghanistan and Iraq under Cheney's watch? Should Cheney sit in the dock in the Hague?). But it's impossible to bring them back to life. I know of none of the alleged Kuwaiti prisoners (or even U.S. MIAs) that were found to have been held hostage by Saddam, and then killed in the runup to Dubya's war (or during it). Once they're dead, they can't be brought back to life, no matter how many UNSCR resolutions you issue. The best you can do is demand compensation and/or put the person responsible on trial once you have them in custody....

Going back to read some of your contributions at DSD

Doubt you'll be able to recognise which ones are me and which ones are Gordon the Muddlheaded with his fascination for touching himself and talking about it third person. But give it a stab, if you're really into digging into those miasmatic emanations from a RWer with brains'o'snot....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:36 PM

The pro-WMD crowd is losing this one for the simple fact that they have words and little else to offer as evidence of this huge stockpile of deadly weapons that Saddam could have trained on the US within 45 minutes or whatever crap Chalabi fed Bush who willingly swallowed every drop without spilling any.

The claims of the Bush administration regarding Iraq were wrong and it will take more than telling me the leftist/liberal press is suppressing the facts to convince me of the righteousness of that position.

There were no WMD found in Iraq--end of argument. Now unless someone can produce these weapons, it's time to stop with the spin and the charade.

Today, Cheney was quoted as saying it was not the U.S. that had to prove its claim that Saddam had these weapons but rather it was Saddam's burden to prove he didn't. Now, if this isn't the hallmark of being unable to admit you were wrong, I don't know what is. "We woldn't have invaded if he'd proved he wasn't stockpiling weapons" is not cutting it and the American public is not fooled (this time). It's a tiresome argument insulting to the inteligence of anyone who has any.

The bottom line is, if you pro-war people don't start producing results that prove this war can possibly have any other outcome but defeat, you can insist to the rocks and trees that Bush was right about Saddam and you'll have a better chance of getting a response than you will from the average American. We've seen enough. Either we change tactics or we'd better get out while the getting is good.

Staying until we are victorious is synonymous with staying forever with no way out. And the truth is, we getting ready to leave. Already we are hearing stories about the miraculous progress Iraqis have suddenly made in assuming control of their own affairs and--hey presto--we just might be able to leave soon. Isn't that special?

But that won't get your precious Bush off the hook. He owes us an explanation. If that makes me un-American in his eyes, oh well, I'm un-American then but I still want an explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 01:19 AM

GUEST,AR282 - Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:36 PM

Your post and point of view is based on cherry-picked ideas, parts of actual statements, all rolled up to serve your purpose.

With regard to members of the MNF leaving, they could all be home in January if the elected Government of Iraq wishes, although I somehow doubt it. For the British sector, we started in March 2003 with just under 40,000 troops, that number has been reduced to about 8,000, it is the opinion of Iraq's current Prime Minister that he can foresee British troops leaving Iraq as early as within the next six months. Is it possible, yes all things are possible, I have no reason to doubt that we will leave, Basra and the South have been more settled than Anbar and the Sunni triangle.

Arne ....."Actually, some did. I was not thrilled with the Tomahawking of Iraq in 1993, nor the 1998 Desert Fox. COme to think of it, there were tons of Republicans that were incensed with 1998 .... fancy that."

Of the latter they were hacked off because he did not ask for approval of both houses and it was a poorly thought out exercise that could not accomplish the aim.

Arne...."But I'd note that "sense of the Congress" resolutions are far different from actually bombing someone, much less an armed invasion and occupation killiong many thousadns of people many of them civilians."

Are you trying to tell us that after setting Regime Change in Iraq as a corner stone of US Middle-East Foreign Policy, The US did not bomb Iraq after it said it would put its faith in the UN efforts and in the wishes of the people of Iraq? Dessert Fox achieved very little, actions taken by the US since summer 2002 have achieved a great deal.


Arne...."In fact, the inspectors withdrew at Clinton's request, not because Saddam kicked them out (as the likes of Dubya seem to believe and even more want you to believe .... for some reason)."

I don't believe that I said that Saddam kicked UNSCOM out just before Dessert Fox. UNSCOM were advised to withdraw their personnel on the recommendation of the US Government. UNSCOM were kicked out of Iraq in 1997/early 1998 by Saddam, which was one of the factors that sparked the incident.

Arne....."But you're simply wrong about it being Clinton's idea to invade Iraq."

When did I say that it was Clinton's idea to invade Iraq - What I did say was that Clinton set Regime Change in Iraq as a corner stone of US Middle-East Foreign Policy. Bit of a difference, but your English Comprehension is poor, you only ever read into something, that which suits your arguement/point of view, something like Guest AR282. The stuff about PNAC and their memo - Red Herring.

Teribus...."Now how about Kuwait, you know that little place from which the Invasion of Iraq was launched, the place that played host to around 250,000 of your countrymen in the lead up to March 2003. What about Saudi Arabia, oh and there's Bahrain, Qatar, and to a much, much lesser extent Egypt, Jordan and Turkey."

Arne's reply to this was the equivalent of .. "Didn't too". But noted he did not deny that the countries mentioned above did assist the US, not just Israel, nor does he deny that they are all US allies in the region.

Arne...."When your enemy's shooting himself in the foot, you don't stop him. Say, that all worked out wonderfully for the Iranians, eh?"

I would say that the only people who have been shooting themselves in the foot recently Arne have been the Iranians.

Arne....."Can you sing "Duuuck ... and coooverrrr..."? But I've read York, Kahn, Rhodes, and whole raft of other books on the subject. Stategery aside, fact remains that the U.S. retains a whole s***load of WoMD. I note you don't dispute it; you simply try to brush it off ... curious tactic for one who complains that I'm "ducking the points"...."

The question asked was completely ignored by young Arne, it would have proved inconvenient to his line of reasoning. No-one disputes that the US retains WMD, as do Britain, France, Russia, China under the terms of the nuclear NPT. Pakistan, India and probably Israel also have nuclear capability, legally as it happens as they are not signatories to the nuclear NPT, therefore not bound by it terms.

Arne...."One thing that someone with a bit more rational mind might glean from the Nazi era, though, is that it is dangerous (if sometimes nonetheless the moral position) to allow a country to become very militarised, very aggressive, and to go around occupying other countries. Yes, in such cases, if you wait long enough, the price of removing the cancer of such a country may be immense in blood and sorrow ... but sometimes it may need to be done, when that country has finally slid down into fascism and oppression and started their rampage across the world."..... Perfect description of Iraq 1990 to 2003, and of the international communities responsibilities and actions. The Ba'athist Party in both Iraq and Syria is a National Socialist Party based on the German Nazi Party.

Arne....You never did say what your parents thought about that idea of someone taking Hitler on over attempted German re-armament in 1933 to 1935. The likely outcome, or the fear of that happening, are not based on my opinion but that of a German General Heinz Guderian.

Arne...."First, I don't know who they were or even if they existed"

You don't know Arne, but you automatically assume that they didn't because it suits your arguement? The UN seemed to believe in their existence, the Kuwaiti Government certainly believed in their existence. Saddam will be dragged in front of a court for this crime sometime in the near future. It is an incident that might even get him in front of an international court.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:16 AM

I think a lid should be clapped firmly down on this thread. The very title is just as grotesque as the original lie which trumpeted vomit/crap [pick the preferred orifice]about mushroom clouds etc., etc.. There is no debate here; no amount of reason will ever sway some of the characters who haunt this forum. Cheyney was seen and heard on t.v. the other day, giving a freshener to the original pack of lies. There will be no end to the bloodletting until such charlatans are either forced into obscurity, or given just punishment for their catalogue of crimes. Sadaam could link arms with a whole line-up of war criminals, from both sides of the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 09:07 AM

From Slate:
...Here's what we do know already, without a congressional inquiry: Members of the Bush Administration were dishonest with the public and with Congress about prewar intelligence. We've known this for some time—see, for example, the comprehensive and damning story Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus wrote in the Washington Post in August 2003 ("Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence"). Over the past two years, several incidents of executive-branch dishonesty in the run-up to the war have turned into subscandals of their own: the aluminum tubes that Iraq used for missiles and not gas centrifuges, the yellowcake uranium that Saddam didn't try to buy from Niger, the mobile biological warfare laboratories that turned out to be hydrogen generators for balloons, the al-Qaida chemical warfare training that was based on a false confession, the meeting with Mohamed Atta that didn't happen in Prague.

If you examine these and other pillars of the administration's case for invading Iraq, a clear pattern emerges. Bush officials first put clear pressure on the intelligence community to support their assumptions that Saddam was developing WMD and cooperating with al-Qaida. Nonetheless, significant contrary evidence emerged. Bush hawks then overlooked, suppressed, or willfully ignored whatever cut against their views. In public, they depicted unsettled questions as dead certainties. Then, when they were caught out and proven wrong, they resisted the obvious and refused to correct the record. Finally, when their positions became utterly untenable, they claimed that they were misinformed or not told. Call this behavior what you will, but you can't describe it as either "honest" or "truthful."

Many of the White House's most serious misrepresentations involve the case that Saddam was trying to build
nuclear weapons, which he had in fact stopped trying to do in 1991. "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," Cheney said in August 2002, in one of his conclusive comments on the subject. This position was echoed by Bush and Rice, who both conjured the specter of a mushroom cloud, as well as by Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, who went into more detail about aluminum tubes and uranium. If you were on the inside and read even the now notorious National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, you at least knew that such statements were at the very least overdrawn. Analysts at the departments of Energy and State weren't buying the aluminum tubes and yellowcake theory that formed the basis of the nuclear case.

Or consider another component of that case that has gotten less attention, the description of fresh "activity" at Saddam's known nuclear sites. A draft paper produced by Andrew Card's White House working group on Iraq, and cited in the 2003 Post article, was characteristically distorted. The document inaccurately attributed to U.N. arms inspectors the claim that satellite photographs showed signs of reconstruction and acceleration of Iraq's nuclear program. It went on to quote something chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told Time: "You can see hundreds of new roofs in these photos." But the White House paper left out the second half of Blix's quote: "[B]ut you don't know what's under them." In February 2003, American inspectors visited those sites as part of U.N. teams and saw that nuclear bombs weren't being made at them. But Bush officials acted as if such counterevidence didn't exist.

In retrospect, Cheney casts himself and his colleagues as uncritical consumers of what the CIA and DIA spoon-fed them. Bad intel, he gives us to understand, is like lousy weather—a shame, but nothing policymakers can do anything about. In fact, the Bush hawks were anything but victims of the intelligence community. They challenged any evidence that cut against their assumptions about Saddam, going so far as to set up their own unit within the Pentagon to reanalyze raw data and draw harsher conclusions. And remember that the trigger for the Valerie Plame scandal was the vice president's mistrust of the CIA.

Another giveaway is the administration's lack of outrage over the bad intelligence they now claim to have been victimized by. Only Colin Powell, before his U.N. speech, seems to have pushed back with any skepticism about charges he was being asked to retail. And only Powell has expressed any outrage after it became evident that his U.N. speech had been a case of garbage in, garbage out.

Powell's old colleagues now defend themselves by saying they didn't know their claims about Iraq weren't true. But the truth is most of them didn't care whether their assertions were true or not, and they still don't.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM

Teribus, I just thought I'd mention that the horse you're beating is dead. It will not get up and run again. It lays there, a pile of lacerated hamburger in a pool of blood, and it has been laying there for some time now. And it's really beginning to stink. And yet, there you are, vigorously wielding your whip with something that verges on desperation.

I'm sorry. But the horse is dead!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM

Teribus: [Arne] ....."Actually, some did. I was not thrilled with the Tomahawking of Iraq in 1993, nor the 1998 Desert Fox. COme to think of it, there were tons of Republicans that were incensed with 1998 .... fancy that."

Of the latter they were hacked off because he did not ask for approval of both houses and it was a poorly thought out exercise that could not accomplish the aim.

Oh, I fully agree ... ummm, sorry, waiddaminnit, you were talking about Dubya there, weren't you??? Oh. Litella-ish "Nevermind...."   ;-)

Are you trying to tell us that after setting Regime Change in Iraq as a corner stone of US Middle-East Foreign Policy, The US did not bomb Iraq after it said it would put its faith in the UN efforts and in the wishes of the people of Iraq? ...

You're getting incoherent as well, Teribus. Better lay off the sauce.

Dessert Fox achieved very little, actions taken by the US since summer 2002 have achieved a great deal.

Well, here again I think I see your point: If you're an undertaker, yes!!!

[Arne]: ...."In fact, the inspectors withdrew at Clinton's request, not because Saddam kicked them out (as the likes of Dubya seem to believe and even more want you to believe .... for some reason)."

I don't believe that I said that Saddam kicked UNSCOM out just before Dessert Fox....

Never said you did. Just clarifying a point the Republicans like to muddy up.

... UNSCOM were advised to withdraw their personnel on the recommendation of the US Government. UNSCOM were kicked out of Iraq in 1997/early 1998 by Saddam, which was one of the factors that sparked the incident.

Here you fall off the deep end. What happened was that Saddam wouldn't allow them to return after Desert Fox. Which is, in a way, rather understandable, as Saddam doesn't have lots of incentive or reason to make nice when we inspect, then take out the inspectors and bomb him, then want to put inspectors back in. Bad reward schedule, you know... Not to mention that Saddam had also gotten a bit pissed that the U.S. had been introducing CIA (or other intelligence) agents into the inspection teams who had their own little agendas, and Saddam thought that this wasn't quite cricket (the U.N. wasn't very happy about it either, as it makes their job in other areas more difficult and gives other countries an excuse for refusing inspections due to the tarnishing of the inspection missions with clandestine spying, something that is not the mission of the inspection teams).

[Arne]:....."But you're simply wrong about it being Clinton's idea to invade Iraq."

When did I say that it was Clinton's idea to invade Iraq ...

Oh, you didn't say it. But you did imply it and/or use Clinton's stance as support for the invasion you so dearly love. And you're continuing to do so. Funny how the worm turns, and now Republicans and the Dubya sycophants are touting Clinton as an "authority", eh? Didn't you know he was impeached ... I mean, IMPEACHED???

The stuff about PNAC and their memo - Red Herring.

You misspelled "fact". But quite like you to ignore it, as it really does throw a spanner in the argumentative works for you....

But noted he did not deny that the countries mentioned above did assist the US, not just Israel, nor does he deny that they are all US allies in the region.

I noted they sent no troops!. They allowed U.S. military operations, hardly contributed. They certainly didn't support the invasion in advance; rather simply agreed (or didn't agree; see Turkey) to allow troop basing in their country. I won't opine on whether they wanted to actually contribute in their heart of hearts and were just inhibited from such by political realities, but the fact is that such "contribution" was pretty much of a passive nature (and not particularly different from their pre-invasion-plan actions WRT U.S. troops over there).

And a FWIW: Oh, I don't deny that "Bandar" Bush is Dubya's ally. Heck, the Saudis got the golden glove treatment after 9/11, and we have Dubya walking hand-in-hand with the Saudis.... But not a single Saudi troop went to Iraq. Did you have a point?

[Arne]:...."When your enemy's shooting himself in the foot, you don't stop him. Say, that all worked out wonderfully for the Iranians, eh?"

I would say that the only people who have been shooting themselves in the foot recently Arne have been the Iranians.

Oh, really? With their buddy Chalabi back in the U.S. good graces, with their Shia allies likely to be running Iraq, Iraq (after 10 years of war with Iran) reduced to rubble and no military threat, and Saddam removed as an opposing power in the Middle East, all with their not having to lift a finger (except of course, perhaps cooking up some phony "intelligence" or otherwise fomenting the was), I'd say the Iranians won ... "big time". They got us to do their dirty work for them. Quite the coup, I'd say....

[Arne]:...."One thing that someone with a bit more rational mind might glean from the Nazi era, though, is that it is dangerous (if sometimes nonetheless the moral position) to allow a country to become very militarised, very aggressive, and to go around occupying other countries. Yes, in such cases, if you wait long enough, the price of removing the cancer of such a country may be immense in blood and sorrow ... but sometimes it may need to be done, when that country has finally slid down into fascism and oppression and started their rampage across the world.".....

Perfect description of Iraq 1990 to 2003, and of the international communities responsibilities and actions.

Yeah, you missed my point. Colour me surprised ... Not!

No, Iraq was not the equivalent of 30's Germany. But see if you might think of some other candidates that might be starting to look a little like them....

The Ba'athist Party in both Iraq and Syria is a National Socialist Party based on the German Nazi Party.

Godwin's Law, eh? Yep, and commies are Nazis because Nazis are the National Socialist party, and Dems are commies because they're seen in public within a mile of Michael Moore (and we know<> he's pink), and thus they're all little fascists ... ummm, make that "Islamofascists" and "Saddam-lovers" too..... There is an anti-Semitic streak to the Ba'ath party, but that's hardly unique to them in that area. But to compare them ... nay, equate them ... with the Nazis is something that should sicken any thinking person.

[Arne]:...."First, I don't know who they were or even if they existed"

You don't know Arne, but you automatically assume that they didn't because it suits your arguement?

Burden of proof is on the proponet of a proposition. You're assuming (or at least arguing based on) facts not in evidence. If you want to be more specific on who died when and why, and why this is such a big deal requiring that another thousand lives, this time U.S. troops, be lost to "cure" these deaths, we might have something to discuss.

And as an aside: I argue my own position (and not under a pseudnym either). If you want to argue with someone else, then just go do it. I'm quite sure my parents have their own opinions, but that's their prerogative to defend, and they're quite capable of doing so. They'd most probably think that you're most unwholesome slime as well, but that is their decision to make.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:40 PM

GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - 23 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM, have read through your post and found that it says nothing.

Cheers,

GUEST,Boab - 23 Nov 05 - 02:16 AM

"I think a lid should be clapped firmly down on this thread... There is no debate here; no amount of reason will ever sway some of the characters who haunt this forum."

I couldn't disagree more:

There are a number of anti-Bush/Blair/War types who insist that Bush/Blair/Cheney/etc/etc lied when they said that Saddam had nuclear weapons - they didn't lie of course because none of them ever said that Saddam had nuclear weapons, The anti-war lobby believe it because they wanted to over the pudding, they wanted Bush/Blair et al to have said that - but they never did.

Reference: Amos - 23 Nov 05 - 09:07 AM, now maybe these words are Amos's or maybe they are cut-n-paste from Slate:

"...assumptions that Saddam was DEVELOPING WMD"

"the case that Saddam was TRYING to build nuclear weapons, which he had in fact stopped trying to do in 1991. "We now know that Saddam has resumed his EFFORTS TO ACQUIRE nuclear weapons," Cheney said in August 2002, in one of his conclusive comments on the subject. This position was echoed by Bush and Rice, who both conjured the specter of a mushroom cloud, as well as by Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, who went into more detail about aluminum tubes and uranium."

Now in August 2002, the ONLY people outside Iraq who knew anything with regard to what stocks of WMD Saddam might have and what the status of the Iraqi nuclear programme were UNSCOM/UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Some here might declare that Mohamed Al Baredai clearly stated that Iraq had no nuclear capability at that time (Summer 2002) but he didn't, he did not report that until early in February 2003, the report he gave then indicated that the IAEA's initial task in Iraq would be over within weeks provided that they confirm that Iraq was not pursuing any programme targeted at the development of a nuclear capability.

Other things that we have established Boab:

The Clinton Administration established the US Policy calling for Regime Change in Iraq on 31st October 1998 - long before the arrival on the scene of Republican President George Walker Bush.

Democrat President Bill Clinton attacked Iraq without seeking permission from either Senate or House of Representatives.

Democrat President Bill Clinton attacked Iraq without the permission of the United Nations (He was to do the same again in Kosovo) citing Iraqi non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 681 (Safwan Ceasefire Agreement).

Now in all this where was the outcry? - strangely silent

Post 9/11 Republican President George Walker Bush:

- Establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

- Assists the Northern Alliance in ousting the Taleban from power in Afghanistan.

- Has the Security Committee, Security Services and Intelligence Agencies conduct a threat assessment to identify potential threats to the United States of America. They advise that Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, are all capable of co-operating with any international terrorist organisation with a view to carrying out an attack on America.

- Goes to the UN to refer the as yet unresolved situation with regard to Iraq. This results in unanimous acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

- Despatches an American Force to the area to pressure Iraq into allowing the resumption of inspections by UNMOVIC.

- Goes to both Senate and House of Representatives and gets approval for use of force against Iraq.

- After seven material breaches of Last Chance Resolution 1441 Republican President George Walker Bush invades Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power citing material breach of 1441 and non-compliance with 681

Now there are a few similarities there and a number of significant differences. It would appear that GWB did go a damn sight further down the road to get the UN involved than Clinton - who didn't bothered going to them at all - I can now see the wisdom in doing that, maybe GWB should have done the same.

Whereas Clinton supported a policy of containment, post 9/11, GWB did not have that option.

So you see Boab, there's lots to debate, and it would be useful and informative if the anti-war side could just for once provide correct quotations of what key figures actually did say, as opposed to what they thought they said, or what they thought they meant. If just for once they could remain with fact as opposed to fanciful fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:52 PM

Ding! Round...round...ummm...

What the hell round is it now anyway???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 05:08 PM

'Round and 'round the mulberry bush.

Get's kinda pointless after a while, donit?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 05:50 PM

Yes It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

The problem is , this Mudcat pantomime is being played out in the country as well!

USA/UK politicians are busily spinning the disaster they have created, to provide cover for troop withdrawals and to avoid collateral damage from the media.
Using exactly the same tactics as Bruce and Teribus.

At the moment the vast majority of people are full of righteous indignation at being lied to, and at the sheer incompetence of our respective govts.
But memories are short, maybe these tactics will prevail and our leaders will move on to maim and kill in another land.

But there is a chance that the stench of this "war" will stick in the craw of the American and British people, and make them scrutinise their leaders more closely; and more importantly scrutinise the road down which we are travelling....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 06:18 PM

Amen to that, Ake!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 08:12 PM

Well, ake, I think you have hit the nail on the head... Yes, Bush has had his war and now, no matter the circumstance unless the US is outright invaded, he won't get another one... He's all done...

The problem as I see it is how quickly the American people are to forget. Vietnam wasn't really that long ago and most of the folks involved in gettin' the US into Irq-mire were around back then... It is disgraceful that we didn't learn much from Nam... In a way, it is a further insult to our brothers who died in Nam...

"When will they ever learn..."

What is also disgracefull is fir the pro-war folks here to continue to tell the same lies and to try to distract folks from what more and more folks are coming to thi8nk about how they got duped into supporting this dumbass war...

And they will tell whatever story that Bush's PR folks can think up to keep from havin' to say. "Hey, maybe we did mess up..."

Just this week we learn that the German intellegence community was tellin' the US intellegence community that "Curveball" din't know squt about squt, yet it was Bush who kept from the Congress the disenting opinions in the daily intellegence reports which would have certainly been made public and Joe-Sixpack would have had at least some inkling that there were folks inside the CIA who were sayin' "Bullsh*t" to the Bush/Cheney claims that Iraq had WMD's...

Oh yeah, a couple days before the vote to go to war, some of these were released to Congress with little or no time to get them into the public consciousness... The damage had been done with the relentless pounding of the War Drum so even if some Congressman did make the time to read the report, there plainly wasn't the time to turn back 4 month's of drum pounding...

But even today, folks a small number of folks still gather 'round the drum. like ol' fraternity buds, and pound and pound away telling and retelling stuff that, face it, no one other than themselves, believe...

There's an ol' Conway Twitty songs which I think was entitled "Too BUsy Drinkin'" that has a line that goes, "The last lie I told her was the one she couldn't believe"... Well, to my pro-Bush friends, you are on that side of the lie...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Puzzled
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 09:32 PM

Did someone forget to put the word "NOT" in the title of this thread? Why don't they fix it?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:46 AM

Nothing in my posting mentioned nuclear weapons, Teribus; but I certainly DO recall, early in the "game", dire statements about "mushroom clouds". And I refuse to believe that, while your memory is nothing if not selective,you you do not recall such reference in the "whip-up" which preceded the assault on Iraq. And, may I suggest the statement "mushroom cloud" does not, in the minds of most modern humans, conjure up visions of a cloud of mushrooms...
    And I hardly think that Colin Powell made those ridiculous presentations at the U.N. about chemical weapon facilities, etc., without the approval, and probable urging , from the string-pullers [no prizes for their identities]. What bitter regrets that man Powell must have!
Finally, I trust that you do not harbour any illusions regarding my attitudes to the administration of William Clinton,as the text of your last posting seems to imply. He too was a favourite role model for Tony Blair and his crawlies, and anything he accomplished in Iraq [or Kosovo]added up to a big negative. The slaughter of civilians didn't start with the illegal invasion;it had been going on for ten years, both by sanctions and by bombing.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 01:30 AM

Thanks for your post Boab, it looks as though we must just agree to disagree. I still believe that there's lots to debate, and whenever others cite incorrect information, or mere unsubstantiated supposition that can be disproved by fact or by reason I shall. It would be useful if correct quotations of what key figures actually said, as opposed to what some people thought they said, or what they thought they meant.

Whereas Clinton supported a policy of containment, post 9/11, GWB did not have that option.

"The slaughter of civilians didn't start with the illegal invasion;it had been going on for ten years, both by sanctions and by bombing."

And you accuse me of being selective!!! The slaughter of civilians in Iraq had been going on for a damn sight longer than that Boab (At the rate of 154 or 282 per day since 1978 depending on what figures you use). The main difference between you and me Boab

Being opposed to intervention in both Iraq and Kosovo, indicates that the main difference between you and me Boab is that while you a fully prepared to sit back and witness the slaughter of innocents, I am prepared to back those who will take necessary action when required.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 06:26 AM

Teribus:

GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - 23 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM, have read through your post and found that it says nothing.

Ahhh. "Brave, brave Sir Robin, bravely turned his tail and fled...."

Your misperception there ... or your dishonesty. Which is it?

Continuing on:

It would be useful if correct quotations of what key figures actually said, as opposed to what some people thought they said, or what they thought they meant.

Just a FYI, Teribus: What they said is not what you think they were saying. Quote-mining's a shady practise. Not to mention the fact that one of the most piss-poor excuses I can think of for f***ing things up badly is to say that others do it also. In fact, they have a name for this logical fallacy: "tu quoque". Or as I like to put it, the "The Democrats were as stoopid as we were" defence (ignoring that there were plenty of liberals that just didn't buy the shite the maladministration was flogging, myself included.

Whereas Clinton supported a policy of containment, post 9/11, GWB did not have that option.

A "constitutional" deficiency on Dubya's part? Or was he just too stoopid to think of anything else? The ol' "when all you've got is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail"?

... the main difference between you and me Boab is that while you a fully prepared to sit back and witness the slaughter of innocents, ...

Nonsense. You're more than happy to have innocents slaughtered. That's what's happening over there now, and you're just tickled pink by it. So don't give us that "holier than thou" shite.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 08:46 AM

"Agree to disagree" is Bushspeak fir...

... "Yeah, we were wrong and we're still wrong..."

As irritating as it sounds to be hearing this Bushite PR line it's comforting to know that when it is used that the party using it is part of the Bushite cover-up scheme...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM

Teribus--

Teribus 23 Nov 2005 4:40 PM--G W Bush "establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001).

And how long did that last? About 20 minutes?

Neither Bush nor his minions ever thereafter implied that Saddam and the events of 11 September 2001 were linked? Whatever you say, since you're obviously the ultimate authority. And you never mislead us.

The mind boggles.

"We taught them a lesson in 1918--and they've hardly bothered us since then"

Bring back the old Teribus. This one is defective.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:19 AM

Ron Davies - 24 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM

Quotes my post:

Teribus 23 Nov 2005 4:40 PM--G W Bush "establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001).

Then asks:

"And how long did that last? About 20 minutes?"

And you are correct Ron, when you state - "Neither Bush nor his minions ever thereafter implied that Saddam and the events of 11 September 2001 were linked?" - That was done by anti-Bush media spin, and by the likes of yourself and Bobert, the man who would prefer to see Saddam still in power in Iraq.

Now this is WHAT HE DID SAY - State of the Union Address 2002:

"Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who SEEK chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world."

"...some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: IF THEY DO NOT ACT, AMERICA WILL."

"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America OR OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime ARMING with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively PURSUES these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has PLOTTED TO DEVELOP anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, ARMING TO THREATEN the peace of the world. By SEEKING weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. THEY COULD PROVIDE THESE ARMS TO TERRORISTS, GIVING THEM THE MEANS TO MATCH THEIR HATRED. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. AND ALL NATIONS SHOULD KNOW: America will do what is necessary to ensure OUR nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

Please note Ron that at NO TIME does he mention Al-Qaeda, at NO TIME does he state that the countries identified as sponsors of terrorism HAVE chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, they are described as seeking them.

Now that is what he said Ron - Not what a bunch of left-wing anti-Bush journalists and a bunch of anti-war bloggers THOUGHT he said.

If anyone reading this thread would care to take note of the last few posts, most have just been personal attacks, none address the points made.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:34 AM

Teribus--

Please don't insult our intelligence. To anybody who has been at least semi-comatose in the past 4 years-- (perhaps that doesn't include your good self)--it's painfully obvious that Bush and his "team" have lost no opportunity to tie Saddam to 11 September 2001. Have you ever heard the term "war on terror?" Saddam "harboring terrorists"?   Etc., ad nauseam.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:37 AM

I humbly submit that we who actually live in the US have been more subject to Bushite tripe of the kind mentioned than you, Teribus. So maybe you could be semi-comatose and not have heard it, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:42 PM

Well then Ron Davies - of Post - 24 Nov 05 - 11:34 AM - Fame

Please don't insult my intelligence. IF it's so painfully obvious that Bush and his "team" have lost no opportunity to tie Saddam to 11 September 2001, you will be able to provide incontravertable evidence as to where and when he made such remarks.

Or does the world and it's dog just have to relly on your say so - AGAIN.

Evidence Gentlemen.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 01:02 PM

He has implied the connection over and over again in his speeches in support of the war, both before and after the invasion. He has repeatedly implied that the war on Iraq was part of the war on terror and that it is a response to 9-11.

You insult your own intelligence, sir.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 01:32 PM

State of the Union Address 2002:

"Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who SEEK chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world."

That is a clear enough statement Amos and yes it does link the war on terror to any terrorist group or regime that would support them in threatening the United States and the world with WMD in a similar attack to the one that occurred on the 11th September, 2001.

What it DOES NOT DAMN WELL DO is infer that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq or infer that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 911.

Use your intelligence Sir.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 02:06 PM

Teribus: If anyone reading this thread would care to take note of the last few posts, most have just been personal attacks, none address the points made.

Ummm, yes, I read your last "response" to me, and that seems to fit the bill.

Please note Ron that at NO TIME does he mention Al-Qaeda, at NO TIME does he state that the countries identified as sponsors of terrorism HAVE chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, they are described as seeking them.

I think the American people (65% and growing every day) are a bit pissed at Dubya and his cronies trying to tell them their prezbit thinks it's OK to play "Simon Says" with them without telling them to pay clllooooooossseee attention to his words, and then tell them, "Hah, I didn't say 'Simon Sez', it's all your fault, you lose, haha!" Most people get annoyed when they are made fools of. Not you, but then some folks are such fools that they never twig to the fact that they've been made fools of....

Please don't insult my intelligence.

I don't worry about counterfactual hypotheticals.

IF it's so painfully obvious that Bush and his "team" have lost no opportunity to tie Saddam to 11 September 2001, you will be able to provide incontravertable evidence as to where and when he made such remarks.

At one time a majority of the U.S. public thought that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda, and a scant 20% or so could correctly answer how many of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq. I'm sure this wildly successful disinformation campaign that wrought these results was the work of those duplicitous Democrats ... or was it al Jazeera?

You're just wilfully blind (or dishonest) when you claim that the maladministration didn't hype the Iraq/911/al Qaeda stuff.

I know you can Google (you seem strangely interested in my personal life). Try it. Or just be the lazy (or dishonest) a$$ that you are, and click to do some reading: Here's a whole buch of quotes for ya.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 02:26 PM

Oh, yeah, speaking of "intelligence":

Teribus thinks that "regime change" and "armed invasion" are precisely the same thing..... *shhhhh* Don't let him know. It's so funny to see him perpetuate his ignorance....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 03:20 PM

As I said bring back the old Teribus-this one is defective. The old one would never have alleged that any of us against Bush's war in Iraq would prefer to have Saddam in charge there.

Proof please--exactly who, and with exact quotes.

The charge is so ludicrous, that, were it not typical of Bushite slander (I thought better of the old Teribus), it would not merit response.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 03:26 PM

I for one have endorsed bankrolling Iraqi groups who planned to topple him--it should have been done from the inside.

Bush, who was so concerned (allegedly) with world-wide terror, has by his incredible short-sightedness and arrogance--created Iraq as the perfect incubator of terror.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 03:27 PM

Just an excerpt:

But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," President Bush said on September 25, 2002.

The next day, Rumsfeld said, "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that Al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire … weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities."

The most explosive of allegations came from Cheney, who said that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center, had met in Prague, in the Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, five months before the attacks. On December 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press: "[I]t's pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in [the Czech Republic] last April, several months before the attack."

Cheney continued to make the charge, even after he was briefed, according to government records and officials, that both the CIA and the FBI discounted the possibility of such a meeting....

A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 08:30 PM

In today's Times...
"Senior military officials made clear yesterday, that the Bush Administration's goal is to cut troop numbers in Iraq from 160,000 to
BELOW 100,000 by the end of 2006."

The game is up boys, as Bobert says its 'Nam all over again, but the bastards are trying to sqirm out with their "integrity" intact.
This is the reason for the spin offensive.
We are being told that Iraqi troops are gradually taking over the security role, when in fact we will leave a factional nightmare, with militias and religious fundamentalists torturing and murdering at will.   A haven for all manner of terrorists, another Afghanistan, manufactured by America and Britain.

WE are accused by Teribus of being Saddam apologists, when in reality Teribus is the apologist, in trying to justify a policy which has been a disasater to ourselves and the Iraqi people.

Our intervention in Iraq, and its consequences must not be allowed to fade from memory like Vietnam, but should be held up like a light to show the faces of the guilty and those who support them...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:10 PM

Still no counter arguements boys, and the promise from Akenaton that he will be cheering from the rooftops if by the end of 2006 US troop levels in Iraq are 160,000 or more - Got news for you Ake they ain't even 160,000 now.

But Ake loves gloom, despondency and disaster - hasn't actually happened yet but why spoil the guys fun.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Peter Piglet
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:21 PM

OINK!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:26 PM

Teribus:

I agree. all these doomsayers are like the Joe Btfsplk character in the Li'l Abner comic strip. They always have a raincloud over their head.

They feel like shit and they want everybody else to feel like shit so they won't be so odd. So they will blend in with the crowd.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Peter Piglet
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:27 PM

OINNNNK!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:34 PM

Best you can do GUEST,Peter Piglet ?? Mark you, you do tend, in general, to make more sense than Arne Langsetmo.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mister Peanut
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:39 PM

Well, they do say that brevity is the soul of wit.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:50 PM

Bush has betrayed his office and the people he was supposed to govern properly. He has deceived and lied to get us into a war he cannot now get us out of. His response is to blame those that believed his crap. "You shouldn't have believed me, you know I'm not worth a shit" is pretty poor as excuses go. Hiding behind Clinton--a man out of office for 5 years now--has gotten very old with me very quickly.

Dear Mr. President:

Clinton didn't invade Iraq, Mr. President, you did. You're in your second term and this war you started out of your control, sir, and you cannot halt the killings of Americans just by declaring the end of major combat. You cannot evade responsibility for your actions just by calling those of us who criticize you un-American. You tried to hide behind the last president to justify your lies. You abused your power in order to get us into something that seriously damages our credibility as a nation and as a people, you are causing more and more families to mourn every month in order to serve some greedy political agenda. Then when a disaster strikes--one you didn't precipitate yourself--you paid it no mind even after its awful effects were realized. You've spent so much on this war you started, that GM, Delphi, Enron, Worldcom, Ford and other major corporations are going belly up while you and your republican Congress twaddle over Terri Schaivo. That's what we're going to talk about, sir, not about Mr. Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:49 PM

Teribus--

Very interesting you have not replied to Amos' citations. No surprise really--classic Bushite maneuver. He has pointed out just a few of the myriads of times Bush and his minions have linked Saddam to al Queda (which you might possibly recognize is usually fingered for the 11 September 2001 attacks).

So you ignore it.

Sorry that won't wash.

There has been a steady drum-beat for years emanating from the US current "leadership" of a connection between Iraq and al Queda.

So you were less than semi-comatose after all.




What's interesting now is that all sides, including the Bushites, are desperately trying to figure out a way to get out of Iraq. The Bushites, however, still want to claim victory. It sounds as if nobody plans to be there for another 11 years, as a general was speculating a few weeks ago. Since Murtha's statement, there's been a sea-change.

Now what happens is:

1)   The Sunnis participate more than expected in the December elections.
2)   The Bushites come out and withdraw a few thousand troops--and say we planned to do it all along.

The question however is what happens when the Sunnis try to amend the constitution--and all their amendments are totally rejected.

If they are disappointed enough to deepen support of the insurgency, will Bush put more troops in?

My guess is he'd be in big trouble if he did--unless he could do it surreptitiously--perhaps extend all tours of duty--which would mean just a few more troops in addition.

Could he do that under the radar?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 01:32 PM

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," President Bush said on September 25, 2002.

Now what was that he said in the SOU Address in 2002 again:

"Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who SEEK chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world."

Now relate that to the quote provided by Amos - "The pursuit of two great objectives" Al-Qaeda falls under the First objective, Saddam's regime in Iraq falls under the Second objective. So if the US was to pursue two great objectives in its declared war on terror the President is perfectly correct there is no difference.

He is still not saying that Iraq had anything to do with 911.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 04:35 PM

The fact remains, Teribus, that between things said by the Bush administration in the run-up to invading Iraq, and Bush propaganda organs such as Fox News Service (which you obviously get your main news from), 60% or more of the American population believed that it was Saddam who attacked the World Trade Center. The Bush administration did everything in its power to foster that belief.

Now, since the lies and deceptions have become obvious, even to a lot of Republicans who are pretty pissed off about it, both you and the Bush administration are trying to back-pedal. You've both been caught with your pants down and you're tap-dancing as fast as you can. Awkward with your pants around your ankles.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:09 PM

Ahhh, just a refresher here...

Bush invaded Iraq because:

1.)Inspite of the German Federal Intellegence Service's insistence that much of the information obtained by the CIA that was used to say the Iraq possessed WMD was obtained by a most unreliable source, "Curveball", Bush over-rode the disentin' opinions and stated that possession of WMD's by Iraq was FACT...

2. Inpsite of the CIA's own assessment that the aluminum tubes were not of the quality to make a centrifuge AND coupled with the report by Joe Wilson, who was sent to Niger to investigate, that the yellow cake story was not true, Bush, upon a forged report from Blair said that Iraq was trying to build nuclear weapons was FACT...

3. Then Cheney, over and over, made references to links between Al Quida and Saddam as FACT...

Okay, none of these so called FACTS turned out to be "facts" but fiction...

Should be the end of the story, right??? I mean if we went to war because of these fears now that they are found to be incorrect, there's no reason to keep killin' Iraqia and havin' our bothers and siters killed in the process...

Remember back when Nixon was elected with his so called "secret plan" to get us outta Vietnam... That was '68... But soon as he took office we started hearing the same crap that we're hearin' now which is "we can't just cut and run".... Well, another 20,000 Americans died beforwe the US did just that!!! That's 20,000, folks!!!

Looking back wouldn't it have been better to "cut and run" in '68 rather than some 5 years later???

The United Sates needs to give notice to the new governwemnt, irregardless of it legitemacy, that it will pull out all of its troops over the next 12 months... It needs to say this with no uncertaain terms... We didn't have any legitimte excuse fir going there in the first palce and that has now been painfully proven to everyone who is breathing...

But the United States needs to do more...

It needs to go back and revisit the Saudi Proposal and find parts that can be resurrected... It needs to bring in the Saudi Royal Family as major players and it needs to have a Middle East Peace Summit... And it needsto spend the bucks it now spends on PR folks that try to make anti-war folks look like traiors and spend that money on PR folks that make commercials in Middle East countries that makes involvemwent in the "right thing to do"...

But, "STAY THE COURSE" is a recipe for disaster, just like it was in Vietnam in 1968...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:48 PM

Teribus.....I am well known in my locality,as a happy-go-lucky fellow, who always has a smile and a kindly word for everyone.
I never get depressed by the actions of our political leaders, or the idiocy of those who support them in the face of overwhelming evidence of their duplicity.

However ,I reserve the right to give my opinion on the consequences of our foreign policy, which as far as Iraq is concerned has indeed meant "doom gloom and more gloom", mainly for the innocent civilians of Iraq and the sons and daughters of America and Britain.

My happy and cheerful personna is somewhat reinforced by the news that 70% of the American people now see the war as a grave mistake and the American administration as untrustworthy.

This may seem unremarkable to we in the UK, who have long been steeped in cynicism regarding our "representatives", but if the sleeping giant of American opinion is at last roused to question the cabal who inflict them, I will in fact be cheering from the rooftops.

And singing   "God bless America"...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 09:48 PM

Envelope please............and the winner in the sophistry category, winning for his posting of 25 November 2005 1:32 PM is......................TERIBUS!!!!!   (thunderous applause)

Congratulations!!! Now wouldn't you like to say a few words to the fans?



"You can't distinguish between al Queda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror":   George W Bush 25 Sept 2002

But that certainly doesn't mean they're linked--oh no!--perish the thought! They're one and the same---but not linked.

How's that again?

PLEASE bring back the old Teribus. This one's broken beyond repair. The old one would never have made such a transparently foolish statement.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 09:57 PM

The broken one is downright dumb...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 10:51 PM

Where do you suppose the old one went?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 11:02 PM

Labotomy???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 02:16 AM

Ron Davies:

Show us one example where Bush said Saddam had anything to do with 911.

Bobert:

Are you going to stay the course on this anti war bullshit you are spreading? Are you ever going to give up and admit defeat?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 04:18 AM

GUEST, 25 Nov 05 - 04:35 PM,

Things were spun and lies and deception played their respective parts, but not by those you accuse.

The spin, lies and deception have the anti-Bush, anti-war camp believing that the current President of the United States of America stated things that he patently did not, this can be easily verified just by reading the text of his speeches.

Ron Davies - 25 Nov 05 - 09:48 PM

<<<"You can't distinguish between al Queda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror":   George W Bush 25 Sept 2002

But that certainly doesn't mean they're linked--oh no!--perish the thought! They're one and the same---but not linked.

How's that again?>>>

Do always do that Ron? Take single sentences literally, applying no context with regard to background, subject or substance?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 10:02 AM

"Show us one example where Bush said Saddam had anything to do with 911"

How about the entire pre-invasion state of the union where Iraq and 911 were mentioned in the same sentence something like 16 times?

Besides, how did you get so off message? Forget Bush alone, the entire right wingnut brigade is STILL insisting on an Iraqi hand in 911.

links here

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 10:54 AM

Teribus et al.--

"You can't distinguish between al Queda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror".

Oh come on. If you can't understand English we may as well end the debate right now.

Unless of course you're stalwart upholders of the "big lie" approach.   Virtually everything the Bush "team" told the US public up to the invasion, at least, say from mid 2002 on, was designed to make exactly the connection between Saddam and al Queda.

But now it suits your purpose to deny it.

Sorry--the big lie doesn't work with people who can read and think. Try your approach somewhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 11:07 AM

Teribus et al.--

Please be sure to check the links provided by TIA. Unless of course you're convinced that National Review Online for instance is in Michael Moore's pocket.

Which perhaps in your paranoid world view it is.

And please tell us when you admit that Bush and his team have linked al Queda and Saddam---for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 11:14 AM

Teribus--

Also, the fans are still hoping for a few words from you on the occasion of your winning the sophistry award.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 05:48 PM

How much fun is it that Old Guy, Teribus, BB et al. have degenerated to making the argument that "{Bush never actually explicitly said verbatim that "there is a link between Iraq and 911"}". This is a far far cry from the arguments we were hearing pre-invasion (which are easily found and reread for confirmation).

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 05:53 PM

It shows how out of touch with reality they are-- and indicates mass self-delusion--I'm sure there's a technical psychological term.

Why they expect to be taken seriously on anything is a mystery.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 05:56 PM

Old Guy,

Yes, I am going to stay on what you refer to as "anti-war bullshit" for the following reasons:

1. It isn't "bullsh*t"...

2. As a patriot is my duty and responsiobility...

3. It is a terrible foriegn policy based on lies...

BTW, are you going to continue to defend every mistake and lie of George Bush??? TIA just gave you enough resources fir yer little knothead self to discover that at least one of the lies that George Bush has been caught telling, he actually, as in FACT, did tell. And he told it over and over...

Ain't our side trying to revise jack... Go back an reread some of the pre-war threads and you read the same folks here, like Ron and TIA, who were making these same points in the run-up to the war..

And make no bones about it... It was a run-up! No make that a sprint-up!!! Bush couldn't get them bombs droppin' on women and kids soon enough to suit him... He had a hissy fir when Colin Powell won probably his only victory against the chicken-hawks in the administration by gettin' drunk frat boy to consent to going before the UN...

Yeah, even though it was perfuntatory and held the invasion offf a couple weeks, I musy have really p.o.'d Bush to have to do a little pre-invasion protocol... Tsk! Tsk!...

But Bush gotr his war after telling Hans Blix, who had just reported to the UN that the Iraqis were copperating fully, to beat feet 'er get bombed!!!

Yeah, Old Guy... I'll tell ya one thing. The blood is on yer hands and don't give me no crap about waht Saddam did!!! If Bush wanted him dead he could have had him assasinated... Heck, if Dan Rathwer could get in don't go and tell me that the US Special Forces couldn't have taken hyim out... I got buddies in Special Forces who would track yer butt down if that is yer opinion of them...

Yeah, Old Guy... The blood is very much on your hands... Hope you don't think of yerself as a Christain 'cause guess what??? St. Peter got somethin' else in mind fir you and yer kind, yer drunk frat boy hero included...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 06:30 PM

A small victory over Bruce or Teribus on this forum is unimportant.
And gloating is unseemly.

The real villains are still in place , both in the US and the UK, and remember the Democrats supported bush when the chips were down.


The real war is just beginning...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 06:43 PM

Don't worry, Ake--I'm sure Teribus or another of Bush's giant intellects will be along to assure us we have not won any victory over them.

I suspect that anybody opposing Bush on this forum had sense enough to vote for Kerry in 2004. Aside from that, there's not much we can do--except toss Bush's supporters out in 2006. And--I hope--figure out which battles are worth fighting--and which ones needlessly energize the other side--e.g. liberals should have listened to Barney Frank in 2004 on election tactics.

But this is even worse thread creep than we have already.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 08:01 PM

Victory, as I define it, would be nuthin' less than the 12 month pullout, a "Saudi Proposal" *like* plan, reparations to Iraq fir the infastructure we destroyed, reparations to the Iraqi families of innocent Iraqis that we have killed and the setablishment of the Department of Peace...

Anything less just won't change much of anything...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 10:39 PM

I have not seen a single quotation by Bush saying Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Show me one like this :Bush said ""

RD: Please provide a definition of Paranoid.

Bobert: I thought it was stupid to stay the course. Whose hands has the blood from the attacks on WTC I, the American embassies and the USS Kohl?

I know I am never going to convince anybody here that their anti-war crusade is a waste of time but it is entertaining to see the responses of people trying to make a point where there is no point to be made.

The only point they make is that they are unhappy with the way things are going in the world and they are frustrated because they cannot change it their way.

Over the past month or more I have been working with many people and have had many contacts with family and friends. None of them have mentioned Iraq, George Bush or Al Quaeda. 0 out of a hundred people or so. This tells me that the protesters here are in a very small minority. They cluster together here to succor each other in an attempt to make people think their numbers are larger than they really are.

They are aided and abetted by the media, including Fox, because the media gives them a voice the same way the terrorists use the media to gain a voice.

When we have another terrorist attack here in the US which is all but inevirable, your butt cheeks will tighten up once more and you will be hiding behind George Bush for protection once again. You will all be bitching that he did not do enough.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 11:11 PM

Step 1: Lord let me accept thyose things for which I cannot change and let me act on those that I can.... ('er sometyhing like that...)

Yo duck,

I have said over and over I do not condone folks killin' each other for political gain... Don't matter if it the World Trade Center, Oklahoma, downtown Bahgdad 'er whatever...

I have no control what so ever over a lot of the killing that is going on but I'd like to think that in the US o0f A, the home of Jeffersonian "democracy" that,f I see some funky stuff going down by my government, that I have an *obligation* to do what I can to stop it...

And I see some funky stuff going down by my governemnmt...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 04:52 AM

Geoduck writes,

Over the past few months, none of my family or friends have mentioned Iraq.........Well why the fuck is that??

Could it be a case of...."DONT MENTION THE WAR"!!!.......;0)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:47 AM

GD:

When we have another terrorist attack here in the US which is all but inevirable,...

Perhaps. Just as we will always have murders. I'm not willing to turn the U.S. into a totalitarian fortress island in a futile attempt to try and eliminate any possibility of untimely death through violence. And while there's maybe a bit we can do to reduce the risk of terrorism (and fighting in Iraq is not one of them), it's silly to help the maladministration perpetuate the myth that terrorism is due to "Islamofascism" ... just remember, for instance, Oklahoma City.....

... your butt cheeks will tighten up once more...

Speaking for yourself, I assume. Certainly not me. I spent the rest of that week hoping to get out of NYC airports to go to the Walnut Valley Festival in Winfield, but the airports were closed/clogged, and many more people had more important claims to space when the airports finally opened up. But in October, I was off to Tchad, a 50% Muslim country. Cautious? Maybe. Not particularly scared, though. Don't really know, GD, why you think that we were the ones terrified. Projection?

... and you will be hiding behind George Bush for protection once again.....

Not much room back there behind a terrified preznit trying to concentrate on "My Pet Goat" as people in NYC were fighting for their lives. That seven minutes was interminable. You think I'd count on that bozo for anything?

... You will all be bitching that he did not do enough.

I tend to bitch about the fact that he doesn't to the right thing. Or at the right time. He's (to borrow his won words) a "catastropic success". How I miss the horrible eight years of peace and prospertity that preceded Dubya's tenure. Good thing he "turn[ed] things around", eh?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:50 AM

Arne: He's (to borrow his won words) a "catastropic success".

Ooooops. Unintentional. But funny.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 08:33 AM

And jus a follow-up to what my pal, Arne, has just said, Quack-ster:

After 9/11 Bush siad that we had had an "intellegence" breakdown and promised to fix it because it was his job to protect Americans...

Then the invasion of Iraq, which has done little in the way of keeping some 2,000 Americans safe while also killing off ten u[pons thousands of Iraqis...

So after the invasion Bush siad we had had an "intellegence failure"... Hmmmmmmm? De ja vo.... Ain't that the thing he was 'sposed to fix???

Nevermind...

Now fast forward to Katrina.... Well, "Brownie", who took the fall for drunk frat boy's Katrina AWOL, had done his job in aasking Bush to act but Bush went on vacationing...

(I can hear Bush now telling Brown, "Hey, call me next wek. I'm on vacation...")

Yes, I agree. There is a supreme "intellegence failure" and it seems more and more like it is centered in the hung-over head of the drunk frat boy...

Why should Atrne, I, or anyone else in America have any faith that Bush cares to, or has the skills, to protect the Americn people???

Peace, Quack-ster,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:12 AM

Geoduck, Teribus et al.--

No link?

Try Bush's 2003 State of the Union (28 Jan 2003).

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam aids and protects terrorists including members of al Queda."--no link?


"Before September the 11th many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained." Now why do you suppose Bush used "September 11" and "Saddam Hussein" in that context? Could it be that he wanted to foster a link in the minds of his listeners?

Nah, not a chance.


How about Amos' quote by Rumsfeld 26 Sept 2002: "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Queda leaders have sought contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire.....weapons of mass destruction capabilities"---no link?

Etc, ad nauseam.

Give your head a shake. Sorry, Geoduck. Your boy Teribus has led you into a trap.

I have better things to do than point out the obvious--which as TIA has pointed out, you can easily confirm for yourself.

Look, Bush and his ""team" sought at least from about mid-2002 to draw connections between Saddam and al Queda.

If you don't realize this, you should learn to read.    After you do that, you could start by reading the National Review link cited earlier in the thread.

Paranoid--well I'd say, as I said earlier, that believing National Review is in the pocket of Michael Moore is a pretty good definition of paranoid. Or perhaps you don't know who Michael Moore is or what National Review is.

In that case, follow the above advice--learn to read.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:17 AM

How's this GWB quote for Old Guy and the Duck:

"The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

Never claimed a link, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:07 AM

Ron Davies - 27 Nov 05 - 10:12 AM

"Geoduck, Teribus et al.--

No link?

Try Bush's 2003 State of the Union (28 Jan 2003).

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam aids and protects terrorists including members of al Queda."--no link?"

Couldn't be referring to these guys then?

<>

Now in the past MGOH has stated that these guys could not have had anything to do with Saddam's regime as they were Kurds and their camp close to the Iranian border was in the Kurdish part of Iraq. However the camp was south and east of the Northern no-fly zone boundary and in territory under Saddam's control. This organisation fought the two other Kurdish Groups, thereby fulfilling a role in Saddam's scheme of things, which is why he permitted them to set up a base in Iraq, they (Ansar al-Islam) not being exactly trusting of SH made sure theircamp was close to the Iranian border.

Ron D......"Before September the 11th many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained." Now why do you suppose Bush used "September 11" and "Saddam Hussein" in that context? Could it be that he wanted to foster a link in the minds of his listeners?

Nah, not a chance."

Very weak point, it could also be taken to mean, exactly what it was supposed to mean, that in light of the Al-Qaeda attacks of September 11th, something had to be done to enforce Iraq's disarmament before Saddam Hussein provides technology or material to some unspecified international terrorist group intent on attacking America

On the linkage between Al-Qaeda and Iraq

The indictment for the 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings which links Iraq and al Qaeda:

"According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq,"


CIA Director George Tenet's letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that indicated intelligence demonstrates links exist:

"We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. ... We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Clinton administration's claims of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda when bombing the Shifa chemical weapons factory in Sudan in conjunction with the attack on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998:

The United States also claims it had other evidence linking the plant with chemical weapons production. That evidence includes links between officials at the facility in Sudan and an Iraqi official who has been labeled by U.S. intelligence as "the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program." The Iraqi, identified as Emad Al Ani, is said to have had extensive dealings with officials at the plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum. That and the connection between terrorism sponsor Osama bin Laden and Sudan's "military industrial complex" were enough to convince the United States that the Shifa plant was involved in chemical weapons production, the official said.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:14 AM

Sorry for some reason the following disappeared from my post below <>

Ansar al-Islam is a radical Islamist group of Iraqi Kurds and Arabs who have vowed to establish an independent Islamic state in Iraq. It was formed in December 2001 and is closely allied with al-Qaida. Some of its members trained in al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, and the group provided safehaven to al-Qaida fighters before Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Since OIF, it has been one of the leading groups engaged in anti-Coalition attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:17 AM

Teribus--

You still don't admit Bush and his cronies were pushing a link between Saddam and al Queda?

How many quotes do you need?

Talk about massive self-delusion.

Not only were they pushing it, they pushed it successfully--probably the major factor in their successful propaganda campaign to push the war they wanted.


What about TIA's latest quote?

And what about National Review etc?    I suppose you think liberals planted that story in National Review online?

Paranoia--QED.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:42 AM

Teribus--

Do you yet admit Bush and cronies were pushing a link between al-Queda and Saddam?

If you don't admit it, I'm about ready to quote you from your own post.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:48 AM

TIA - 27 Nov 05 - 10:17 AM

"The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

The source of the above "quote" is????

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:56 AM

Teribus--

In addition to your other qualities, you're getting sloppy.

What is the date of your quote by George Tenet to the Senate Select Committee? (posting of 27 Nov 2005 11:07 AM)




Hope you're preparing your remarks on the occasion of receiving the sophistry award.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 01:47 PM

Teribus – it might be time for you to give up soon (before the umpire invokes the mercy rule). The source of the previous "quote" is a press conference on September 25, 2004.

But since that probably won't satisfy you and your chums, here's more…

GWB, weekly radio address, February 8, 2003:

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct, and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s."



GWB May 1, 2003, speech aboard the Lincoln (under the banner – remember?):

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001. With that attack, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got".


GWB Press conference, June 17, 2004:

"…there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda in Sudan."

Do you really still believe he never tried to say there was a link between Saddam and Al Quaeda?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Just Curious
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 02:42 PM

Behold! There lies Teribus at full fathom five, still clutching the soggy straw that he thought would keep him afloat.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 05:01 PM

Hmmmmm, is the "proven liar" certificate gettin' ready to be issued here???

Maybe, maybe not...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 06:45 PM

Teribus, Geoduck, OldGuy:

[re: Dubya not saying that Saddam and al Qaeda were linked]

Here's for ya:

For example, this statement by Bush on February 8, 2003:

    Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

Only problem here is that virtually none of that was true.

Now are you folks going to be gentlemen and acknowledge that Dubya actually did his very best to tie the two together?

Doubt it.... Certainly not Mr. "I tell ya, black is white, who you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes" Teribus.....

Teribus [quoting Tenet]: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. ... We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Couldn't be that these "credible" sources were Chalabi's thugs'n'liars (such as the famous "Curveball), eh?

Teribus is bound and determined to go down with the ship....

But we can see from the link above where OldGuy and Geoduck get their "news".... The RNC puts out the spin points, and the media and the RW blogs and the rest of the RNC "spin machine" blasts the latest talking points around the world ... and then the RW sycophant crew all starts blabbering and saying the same wacky thing at the same time. Curious ... "we are the Borg -- you will be assimilated!"

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 06:55 PM

Ahhhhh, are we still payin Chalibi $450,000 a month for his expertize on Iraq, Arne???

(Hey, Bobert, that's a lotta dough fir a lotta crap!!!)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:12 PM

Just saw a cartoon depicting Bush at his desk writing a memo.

"The United States will seek out terrorists responsible ofr 9/11 by invading afganiston/affganestan/afgannest--IRAQ."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 08:45 PM

Bobert - I don't know about Chalabi's monthly salary but I did find this in the May 31 edition of Newsweek:

"All told, Chalabi's INC has been paid about $33 million by State and some $6 million by the DIA."

and this, "Chalabi's INC associates have been accused of using their connections at the Ministry of Finance and the major banks to commit fraud and embezzlement, according to charges that led to the raid on Chalabi's headquarters. Chalabi's men have also been accused of extortion and kidnapping by the Iraqi Central Criminal Court, which was set up by the U.S.-run CPA."

Not only that, yesterday's guardian tells us, "In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election."

BTW - These are 30 year contracts.

Hmmmm........

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 09:42 PM

Someone upthread mentioned that gloating is not seemly. I agree. However, it's damn hard not to feel some level of vindication when we've been called cowardly, unpatriotic, treasonsous Saddam aopologists for several years now... and low and fucking behold, the stuff we were posting years ago all turns out to be TRUE! I know Bobert has got to feel al little bit of this - 'cause I remember Teribus, Old Guy, and others mocking him about his prediction that there would be house-to-house urban warfare in Iraq, and a multiyear to multidecade commitment of US troops, and tens of thousands of civilian casualties and... and ... and... The written record is so totally there for anyone who cares to look at it.

Sorry folks. It ain't exactly gloating, 'cause we're not happy about this shit. But the other side has yet to admit that they were the least bit wrong, and we were the least bit right. They still insist on calling US (!) the fools. So, when we get a chance to show, using their own words, that they are full of crap, I'm not big enough to pass on it.

A little petty? A lot immature? Guilty as charged.

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:00 PM

Thanks TIA... BUt you and lots of others were in the pits wid me... Yeah, if an ol'hillbilly could see this without spending $33M on Chalabi lies then why couldn't BUsh and his gang of chickenhawks see it... I mean, there qwere millions, millions and millions of folks in the streets all 'round the world who saw the truth!!! Anf they were in the streets... I mean, like nuthin' that evr happened during thr Viet Nam war but here these millions and millions of folks sayin'. "Hey wait just a dog-gone minute!@!!"

But di9d drunk frat AWOL boy wait just a minute to check his facts??? Well, Heell no, he didn't... LIke foremer Tresury Secretary under Bush said, "Bush was Hell-bent on invading Iraq from Day 2"...

Yeah, not only has Bush really screwed up our country for atleast the next decade as folks try to figgure ways to extracate the US from everything he has messed up, but I gotta pay fir the clean up...

Now some folks here think I'm jus' playin' about havin' to come up with money to pay taxes but I ain't... It is the single most hardship on me but I bite the bullet, borrow some years, but I do it...

Now come drunk frat boy, who never had to make one sacrifice in his life who has plundered our country into an hopeless war and and a hopele4ss fiscal crisis and I have to pay fir it???

Hey, beyond the morals here, Americans gotta figgure out what I have figgured out... We are gettin' robbed!!!

This Bush guy is an imposter and a crook and ought to be in friggin' jail!!!

Yeah, I'm mad...

Ain't just about immoral wars... It's also about outright theivery!!!

Screw him and the horse he rode in on...

I'm mad and America's gettin' mad, too...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:08 PM

Bobert: Ahhhhh, are we still payin Chalibi $450,000 a month for his expertize on Iraq, Arne???

Dunno. They didn't let any reporters (or process servers) anywhere near Chalabi when he came and had his private audience with the maladministration a couple weeks back.

Clinton had the good sense to cut off Chalabi and the INC because they looked to be more a bunch of opportunistic crooks that any actual "independence movement" or "government in exile". Millions went to Chalabi that were unaccounted for, so Clinton snipped the umbilical.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:23 PM

Of course with giant intellects like the latest feeble incarnation of Teribus---who won't even admit that Bush and his minions were pushing a link between al Queda and Iraq at least since mid 2002---there's not much challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:38 PM

It's just that there's a boundary between stubborness and bull-headed stupidity-- and Teribus wants to find out absolutely, precisely, where that is.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:45 PM

Ahhhh, Ron, hate to tell ya' but looks like T-Chicken has flown the coop... Maybe got reassigned by his bosses??? All I know is that about 2 -3 days ago I challenged him to provide evidence that Bush had endoresed the "Saudi Proposal" with a simple yes/no, check the appropriate box question...

He ahsd allready very much implied that Bush has supported the "Saudi Proposal" and was on the verge of gettin' labled "proven liar" status so he beat feet...

De ja vu...

When the going get tough, T-Chickenhawk takes off...

(Hmmmm, Bobert... Maybe there's a song in there...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 02:20 AM

TIA - 27 Nov 05 - 01:47 PM

"The source of the previous "quote" is a press conference on September 25, 2004." And this "quote" convinced how many American citizens in the run up to the US led invasion of Iraq? Unfortunately the dates seem to be a bit wrong for that, his quote came 18 months too late. With regard to your other "quotes".

GWB, weekly radio address, February 8, 2003: Here he is referring to intelligence presented to Bill Clinton, which the latter used to justify the cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan.

GWB May 1, 2003, speech aboard the Lincoln (under the banner – remember?): In line with what he clearly stated in the 2002 State of the Union Address.

GWB Press conference, June 17, 2004: Intelligence dating back to the Clinton Administration, the reason they launched a cruise missile at a powdered milk factory.

As to your question....."Do you really still believe he never tried to say there was a link between Saddam and Al Quaeda?"

When? between 11th September 2001 and 20th March 2003, or between 20th March to present. During the former period they were very clear to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks.

Since the invasion, Zarqawi's statements and actions have been the best confirmation ot the link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:02 AM

Teribus:

During the former period they were very clear to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks.

And the rest of it is "It's aaalllllllll CLINTONS'S fault! He made me do it. Geez, but us Republicans loathed him, loathed his foreign policy, attacked his strategery, but his hypnotic peni$ dangling there made us believe everything he said (or that we hallucinated that he said) ... so we acted on it." Waugh, waugh waugh..... Have some cheese with that whine, Teribus. Not to mention that Clinton didn't say anything like the lying scumbags in the Dubya maladministration did, and as definitively as they did, or go blow $300B and 2000+ soldiers' lives on a strategic disaster of a war which didn't even accomplish the purpose that it was started for, based on this totally ncompetent (or dishonest) assessment of Iraq.

The good thing is that 2/3 of the U.S. population (and the greater number overseas) that aren't brain-dead are finally coming around and saying "Wha' da effin' happened? That was a load'o'crap!".... The only ones still sucking Dubya's hind teat are folks like you that have some reason only they can explain for their continuing obtuseness. But I'm thinking it sure has to gnaw on you to keep up the "brave front" day after day, while deep inside, you know you really f***ed the pooch on this one and that Lady Macbeth would change places with you in a heartbeat....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:47 AM

Teribus, you take the cake. You're probably the last one anywhere on the entire political spectrum who does not realize that Bush and co., between about mid-2002 and the invasion in 2003, engaged in a steadily increasing and eventually successful propaganda campaign to convince the American people that there was a clear link between Saddam and al Queda.


A few eons ago you crossed the boundary I was mentioning--congratulations--you are no longer just stubborn.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:51 AM

Also, have you thanked the UN yet today for Bush's 2004 election?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 05:08 AM

We even already have a thread to describe Teribus' latest incarnation--"The Sad Passing of Common Sense"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 08:24 AM

You fellas demanded the quotes. You got the quotes. Now parse and quibble all you want.

BTW:
"Since the invasion, Zarqawi's statements and actions have been the best confirmation ot the link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. " should read "Since the invasion, Zarqawi's statements and actions have been the best confirmation ot the link between Al-Qaeda activity in Iraq and the Bush invasion".

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 03:54 AM

Status Check:

1993 - US World Trade Centre bombed Al-Qaeda admits responsibility for the attack. (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair)

1997 - Saddam Hussein withdraws all co-operation from UNSCOM Inspection effort in Iraq (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair)

1998 - Al-Qaeda attacks two US Embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole in the Yemen (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair)

1998 - US President Bill Clinton, without going to Senate, House of Representatives or the United Nations, launches cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan, at least one of which is a Sovereign State, a member of the United Nations and formally recognised as such. That was an act of war, it also tee-ed off OBL to the nth degree and planning for 911 commences. (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair)

1998 - US President Bill Clinton is advised by his intelligence services and security advisors that Al-Qaeda/Iraq contacts have been made at high level aimed at future co-operation. Now Bill knows that he has pissed off OBL mightily, so should realise that something nasty approaches - that something might involve input from Iraq if something isn't done about it. (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair)

1998 - US President Bill Clinton makes regime change in Iraq US foreign policy. (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair)

1998 - US President Bill Clinton advises UNSCOM personnel to leave Baghdad and initiates "Desert Fox" series of attacks on various sites and installations in Iraq. He does this without going to Senate, House of Representatives or the United Nations, citing Iraqi non-compliance with existing UN Security Council Resolutions. Everybody in the good old US of A are all quite happy because they are in the middle of putting their elected Head of State through the wringer because of a blow-job - Nice to see everybody had their priorities right. (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair)

2001 - WTC destroyed, Pentagon damaged in series of Al-Qaeda attacks

2001 - US President George W. Bush demands that the Taleban Authorities in Afghanistan hand over OBL and the Al-Qaeda leadership - They refuse, a number of times.

2001 - Unlike Clinton, US President George W. Bush does not start lobbing bombs in all directions. He focuses on the group inside Afghanistan fighting the Taleban and decides to give them support. Result Northern Alliance defeats Taleban and drives them from power - No US invasion as some claim, no act of war as with Clinton, but the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd are up in arms.

2001/2002 - US President George W Bush has House Security Committee with the aid of all of America's intelligence and law enforcement agencies carry out a threat assessment. The following countries are identified as posing a potential threat to the US by means of providing WMD material technology or expertise to an international terrorist group, such as Al-Qaeda, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. Note - this conclusion was reached by others not by George W. Bush or by Tony Blair.

2002 - Precedent set by Bill Clinton in 1998, would have allowed GWB to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq, nothing has changed, Saddam is still in violation of UNSC Resolutions agreed to at Safwan, the contacts indicating possible co-operation between Al-Qaeda and Iraq have not been disproved. Iraq has been identified as a potential threat - So what does US President George W. Bush do?

2002 - US President George W Bush goes to the United Nations, result UNSC Resolution 1441, UNMOVIC inspections teams go back to Iraq, US build up of troops in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region to keep pressure on Saddam. (Damn sight more than Clinton did,

2002 - US President George W Bush goes to House of Representatives and to the Senate and requests their authorisation and approval to use military force if required, they agree, again a damn sight more than Clinton ever did.

2003 - With UNMOVIC head Dr. Hans Blix still complaining of lack of Iraqi co-operation (I know Bobert has his little quote but if he reads on a couple of paragraphs he'll find that it is rather heavily qualified) and there having been seven material breaches of 1441, US President George W Bush acts, his precedent for acting is the broken Safwan ceasefire agreement (remember the same reason that Clinton was allowed to invoke without a murmer). No point in going back to the UN although they do try, only to be told by France that France will veto any proposed resolution irrespective. So apart from consulting both houses of Congress, apart from involving the United Nations, apart from putting together a coalition of allies larger than for the first Gulf War in 1991, what has George W. Bush done that beloved Bill Clinton didn't do and get away with without a side-ways look or comment.

Going back to Clinton's attack on the Sudan, if I had been Sudanese President my response would have been a bit different. All the anti-war, anti-Bush types along with the conspiracy theorists and looney-left prattle on about a movie called "wag-the-dog". Ever heard of another movie " The Mouse That Roared"? Had I been head of state of the Sudan in 1998, my immediate response to Clinton's attack would have been to put my country's case before the entire Assembly of the United Nations and declared war on the United States of America - Oh Sudan would have lost in damn short order, but we would not have let America out of our country until after you had fixed everything in sight. Which by the way is what we are going to have to do in Iraq, and that was a known factor long before action was taken in March 2003, what was not known was how long it would take.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:18 AM

How are you going to "fix" the thousands of dead civilians?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:37 AM

Teribus's New'Facts'R'Us litany:

1998 - Al-Qaeda attacks two US Embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole in the Yemen (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair)

You must have hired Dick Cheney's fact checkers.

1998 - US President Bill Clinton advises UNSCOM personnel to leave Baghdad and initiates "Desert Fox" series of attacks on various sites and installations in Iraq. He does this without going to Senate, House of Representatives or the United Nations, citing Iraqi non-compliance with existing UN Security Council Resolutions. Everybody in the good old US of A are all quite happy because they are in the middle of putting their elected Head of State through the wringer because of a blow-job...

Ummm, nope. Not all are happy. In fact, the very Republicans busy licking the brown stuff out of Dubya's a$$ right now (but furtively looking sideways to see if they can slink off to keep from being drowned in the coming deluge [Cunningham's just the first drops of rain] were aghast at Clinton's temerity to take out Osama been Forgotten (nee "bin Laden" until Dubya figured he was too tough to catch with an entire military machine that spends as much as the next 10 combined, so he declared him "not important"). Unfortunately, Clinton's admitted extra-legal attempt wasn't successful, but in fact it at least came a lot closer than anything that Dubya's done....

2001 - Unlike Clinton, US President George W. Bush does not start lobbing bombs in all directions. He focuses on the group inside Afghanistan fighting the Taleban and decides to give them support. Result Northern Alliance defeats Taleban and drives them from power - No US invasion as some claim, no act of war as with Clinton, but the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd are up in arms.

And the local "help" that Dubya hired to do the grunt work takes money off both sides and lets Osama escape. Good, good, move. Yep, privatising and off-shoring security has to be one of Dubya's Einstein moments (of which there are legion).

But just a FYI, Afghanistan is still a problem. In fact, it's looking quite dicey there too with Karzai dubbed the "President of Kabul", and the warlords and/or even Taliban running significant areas of the country.

2002 - Precedent set by Bill Clinton in 1998, would have allowed GWB to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq, nothing has changed,....

Thought you were complaining about that "precedent". Sorry, silly me. It's good precedent when Dubya follows it. But FWIW, there's a difference bewteen going after someone who attacked you, and going after someone who didn't. And a difference (albeit not legally too significant) between cruise missiles and staging a friggin' invasion and occupation....

You left out the part where sane heads told the maladministration their "intelligence" was full'o'shite, the part where the UNMOVIC inspectors, working under authority of that self-same UNSCR 1441, were doing their job and reporting there weren't any WoMD, and then the part where Dubya said "F*ck Saddam, we're taking him out" (followed by a pumped up "Feels good!" from the former cheerleader) and then invaded Iraq against the authority of UNSCR 1441 (not to mention against the wishes and intentions of Congress that had given him authority to use force if necessary, not just because he felt like it.....

And some of your other "facts" are also full'o'crap.

Have a good day.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 07:29 AM

Teribus rewriting history again:

No point in going back to the UN although they do try, only to be told by France that France will veto any proposed resolution irrespective.

Ummm, Dubya said he'd call for a "show of hands" anyway just to show those cheese-eating surrender monkeys up for the iggnerant cowards they are. But cooler heads told him to drop that idea (as quietly as possible, and hope everyone forgot what he'd promised to do) because straw poll showed that even the U.S. arm-twisting and bribes would only garner 5 of 13 votes on the Security Council (and thus a veto by the French or Russians would have been just rubbing it in). So Dubya bravely turned his tail and fled, and went into Iraq anyway despite the opposition of most of the Security Council. Let's get the facts straight. Dubya pulled out prematurely, took his ball and went home. He never did "try" for the vote.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:18 AM

Incredible.

It seems the T-lite argument has now evolved to "the invasion of Iraq was really Bill Clinton's idea, and GWB was innocently following that precedent." {or something like that...I think}

Two questions:
1) does this mean that GWB will now continue to follow precedent and admit that the invasion was a "Big Mistake"?

2) should Clinton really get credit for the invasion when it was the Cheney cabal (then incarnate as the PNAC) that actually wrote the plan for the invasion in the 1990s, and tried (unsuccessfully) to sell it to Clinton?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:52 AM

"And some of your other "facts" are also full'o'crap."

And how would you know Arne, so far you haven't addressed a single point.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 12:28 PM

Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War

Wolfgang (sorry if that article has been linked to already in one of the threads)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 02:42 PM

Well, good point, TIA...

When Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz tried to get Clinto to attack Iraq he threw the bums outta of his office....

But, whatever...

Seems that whenever the Bushites run outta of excuses fir their own failures, which BTW are pilin' up higher an' higher every day, they just drag Slick Willie out...

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush proposed a new Department: The Department of Alabis!!! Or, maybe the Department of Revisionism, or maybe the Department of Bullsh*t???

Heck, there's a couple Bushites 'round there who would make excellent secretaries...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 06:36 PM

The article you linked to Wolfgang is rather on the ultra-pessimistic side. In forcing his historical parallels Martin van Creveld misses a few extremely important points:

1. The political process and progress in the country. Come 15th December the Sunni population will vote, they heeded the call to boycott back in the Spring and regretted it ever since, they ignored the threats to vote in the recent referendum and they will definitely vote on the 15th.

2. The US Forces present are not conscripts as was the case in Vietnam.

3. The US Forces present in Iraq are far from demoralised.

4. Zarqawi's recent attacks have even prompted OBL's second in command to order him to stop targeting innocent muslim civilians.

5. Attacks are becoming fewer, no doubt they will increase in the run up to the election as they have, but they are nowhere near as spectacular as before and nowhere near as effective. Apart from roadside bombs, the insurgents hardly ever take on either the MNF or Iraqi Army.

I think that this article has been written in an attempt to frighten US politicians into staying the course.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:08 PM

T-

As to yer points...

1. Don't be lookin' fir a big Sunni turnout and either way, the day before, the day of and the day after, Iraq will still be in a civil war that does not offer any future protection of Sunnis... Hey, not that I'm in love with Sunni's but I'm less inlove with idea of loosing 5 Americans a day to protect tem either...

2. No, today's army in Iraq is there based on a combination of the "Now Child Left Unrecruited" Act and something that the US hasn't done in my life time: "Stop loss" where you ahve 50 year olds in Iraq who thought they had done their time a long time ago...

3. How do you know about the moral of the troops in Iraq??? Oh yeah, you saw it on TV... Gee, can't argue with TV...

4. Zarqawi??? Hmmmmm, can't find Osoma so now ya gotta have a new Boggieman-da jour... Yeah, no boogie man??? That be bad... Always gotta have a boogie man... BTW, what nationality is Zarqawi???

5. Attacks are getting fewer? How come the American death tolls are rising??? As fir tactics, why fight to yer opponent's strength's???
MST, 101...

Sorry, W-gang, but these seemed to be purdy much powder puff questions on T-Lite's part...

I'm seriously worried about the boy when I can go thru his pop quizes like a hot knife thru butter... They used to be tougher???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:41 PM

All that Teribus wrote was:

[Arne]: "And some of your other "facts" are also full'o'crap."

And how would you know Arne, so far you haven't addressed a single point.

Projecting again?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:01 PM

"Attacks are becoming fewer"...

Hmmm. Teribus better call the Pentagon and correct their terrible misperception, because they think that attacks are at an all-time high !!!


Little quote from the link:

"Pentagon officials said that in October there were about 100 attacks a day in Iraq compared with 85 to 90 attacks a day in September"

What does our friend T know that we don't?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:13 PM

That was me at 10:01. Cookie drift.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:19 PM

Yeah, speakin' of 10:01, I mighta have throwed Ol' T off with my comment about MST 101....

That's "Military Science Training, 101"

Whew, hate fir the boy to have to go back to Google yet again...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 12:36 AM

As I've already said, the main question will not be how many Sunnis participate in the December elections--since more than anticipated probably will--but what happens in the likely event that when they try to amend the constitution after the election---since most of the main questions of government have been put off--- all their amendments are soundly defeated.

Will that cause them to support the insurrection in greater numbers, and if so what will Bush do?

Putting in more troops is becoming progressively less of an option for him--virtually everybody across the political spectrum is talking about taking troops out, not putting more in. The only question is when and under what conditions to withdraw. Since Murtha's statement, there's been a sea change.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 05:56 AM

Ron has pointed out clearly the flaws in Teribus's argument, but I have never seen Teribus acknowledge any point of view which contradicts his own.
There is a possibility that all the factions in Iraq will embrace "democracy", setting aside their religious and historical differences and accepting a benevolent American presence in their country for the foreseeable future, but much more likely is the descent into civil war which is widely predicted.

If not civil war the country will surely become lawless, ruled by mad fundamentalists , warlords and private militias.

No matter what the pro-war people say, the intervention by USA/UK has made a bad situation many times worse , and we are still faced with the problem of making an organised withdrawal without too much loss of life.

This will not be easy and will of course be perceived as a humiliating defeat...but there will be no other way.

One positive point is that the endgame in Iraq will probably mean the end for the neo-con experiment in America...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 08:29 AM

Yes, ake... You are very much on top of this one...

In Afganistan you don't have to get far into the country side and find warlords in complete control of vast regions...

And with this control you have Taliban-ish business as usual...

That is one scenerio and, of course, the elections won't end the civil war...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 09:47 AM

Teribus--

Are you yet willing at least to acknowledge that Bush and his minions--- (NB not Clinton--try consulting your calendar or whatever else necessary to find out who was president)--carried out a steadily increasing and eventually successful campaign to convince the US public of a direct link between Saddam and al Queda? This happened between about mid- 2002 and Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 10:00 AM

With 93 U.S. troops killed, October saw the highest number of American deaths in Iraq in a month since January, when 107 died. (from the article linked to by TIA with the title '...all-time high')

That's a very creative use of the expression 'all-time high'.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 12:09 PM

Perhaps not so creative. Also in the article, it says that while deaths per attack are down, *number* of attacks is up.

I happen to think that the number of attacks is a better measure of whether the insurgency is abating than is number of deaths. The former is completely under the control of the insurgents, while the latter has a large component of chance, defensive strategy, medical response, and other factors beyond the insurgents' control.

Not an expert in this field though...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 12:25 PM

Ron Davies - 30 Nov 05 - 09:47 AM

To my certain knowledge, to adopt Ebbie's phrase ther has never been any attempt on the part of the Bush Administration to convince the US public of a direct link between Saddam and al Queda - whoever, or whatever the latter might be.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 01:00 PM

Teribus--

"To your knowledge"---that says all we need to know about your knowledge.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 01:27 PM

This article provides some "certain knowledge".

Seems Bush is following a Clinton precedent after all (i.e. using verrry careful wording to maintain plausible deniability at some later date).

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 02:16 PM

Bobert:

In Afganistan you don't have to get far into the country side and find warlords in complete control of vast regions...

And with this control you have Taliban-ish business as usual...

That is one scenerio and, of course, the elections won't end the civil war...

Correctamundo. Iraq isn't Vietnam II. It's America's Afghanistan. Fits on the other end of the mantel from America's actual Afghanistan, which we chided the Russians for when it was their problem, but which the inept fools in the maladministration have managed to make their own. Afghanistan is no "victory", and little better (if at all) for our efforts there. Yes, even the elections there didn't do a whole lot but give the locals badges. But that was always a "we don't need no badges" type of place, and it's rather naive to think that we could make it anything else. And we're losing troops there as well (although arguably they're a tad closer to Osama bin Forgotten over there).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 02:30 PM

Of course, what we are alleging in this thread now is that Bush and his cronies, whether or not they personally believed Saddam was tied to 11 September 2001, sought, successfully in the end, to persuade the US public that the two were in fact tied.

It is clear that they did in fact make this case to the US public--as I said, successfully--indeed this is probably the major method they used to marshal support for their invasion of Iraq, especially by raising the spectre of September 11 devastation multiplied by the (phantom) WMD at Saddam's disposal.

More later.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 10:14 PM

Teribus--

Meant to tell you--you're nothing if not entertaining. In fact you've just won another award--Creative Interpretations In Foreign Policy--otherwise known as the Disneyland award--as in Fantasyland.

You can put it on your shelf--it'll look great next to your sophistry plaque. But the fans are still somewhat disappointed to have missed your acceptance speech--maybe you could combine the two.

So--Bush was just following Clinton's precedent--Bush as Clinton's puppet. Congratulations!---that is by far the most imaginative basis I've heard yet for Bush's invasion of Iraq. Keep up the good work!

But I thought Bush only took dictation from God. Does this mean Clinton is God? Isn't that idolatry? Sounds like there's a problem.

I suppose there is some plausibility to the idea that Bush had to follow Clinton's lead--after all we have yet to hear a coherent sentence emanate from Bush. Perhaps you're right-- it's too much to expect that Bush could think for himself. But what about his advisors? Can't they think either?



It's clear to any thinking being, at least on this side of the pond, that Bush and his "team", starting about mid-2002 and going up to Bush's invasion of Iraq, sought to portray to the US public a close linkage between al Queda and Saddam.

It's certainly understandable that, not being American, you have a hard time understanding US politics (though many UK Mudcatters understand just fine.)

However, it's rather baffling that you don't seem to understand English. I had thought it was your mother tongue.

Just to pick one of the statements made by the Bush "team",--it's what's known as a target-rich environment-- let's try the statement cited by Arne in his posting of 27 Nov 2005 6:45 PM.

Statement by Bush 8 Feb 2003. If you get out your calendar, count on your fingers and toes or whatever you need to do, you may possibly realize that this is before the Bush invasion of Iraq.

Statement as follows--remember--made on 8 Feb 2003---do you follow so far?

Statement: "Saddam Hussein has longstanding direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Queda have met at least 8 times since the early 1990's. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document-forgery experts to work with al Queda. Iraq has also provided al Queda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Queda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases."

No links between al Queda and Iraq?

Now if you sound these words out carefully and keep your dictionary close at hand, I'm confident you can eventually figure out what is being said here. But if by some chance you need a translation, I'm sure we can help you out.

If Bush did not endorse these sentiments, why do you suppose he didn't end this statement by saying "But we know now that all the above is false information, used by President Clinton to justify the cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan"?

Somehow, he left this out.

So, it appears a logical mind--(perhaps this excludes you)--would conclude that in fact Bush himself believed what he had just said in this radio address.

Please let us know when this penetrates your skull.

It makes no difference if this statement, one of many along these lines by Bush and his minions, has no basis in fact. This is what he said.

Your quarrrel is with him, not us.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 10:17 PM

"quarrel"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 02:25 AM

In answer to Ron Davies question asked in the posts referred to below:
Ron Davies - 27 Nov 05 - 10:23 PM
Ron Davies - 30 Nov 05 - 09:47 AM

I would refer Ron to the answer I gave TIA
TIA "....."Do you really still believe he never tried to say there was a link between Saddam and Al Quaeda?"

ME - When? between 11th September 2001 and 20th March 2003, or between 20th March to present. During the former period they were very clear to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks.

Pay particular attention to that last sentence Ron, you are rather keen on taking single sentences in isolation and at face value, and remember how this little section of the thread developed. It was the contention by you, Ron Davies, that GWB linked Saddam to the Al-Qaeda attacks on 11th September 2001. Well Ron HE DIDN'T. The reference to your post by the way is

Ron Davies - 24 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM

Teribus 23 Nov 2005 4:40 PM--G W Bush "establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001).

Then asks:

"And how long did that last? About 20 minutes?"

As to the investigation into possible Iraqi/al-Qaeda links the evidence of those goes back well into the Clinton administration, plus the presence on Iraqi territory of a terrorist group associated, trained and inspired by Al-Qaeda. There is no doubt at all that prior to 911 there were links between Iraq and a number of terrorist groups, that after all was why the Security Committee set up to evaluate potential threats to the USA identified Iraq as being one of the most dangerous, particularly in the light of its ongoing non-compliance with UNSC Resolutions. And also remembering that its ruler Saddam Hussein was the only head of state to publically applaud and congratulate those who planned and carried out the attacks of 911.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 07:09 AM

Teribus - please read the link I posted on Nov 30 at 1:27. You seem to br claiming that Bush et al carefully pointed out NO link before the invasion, but now (post-invasion) are making statements that assert a link. This is precisely backwards! Please go read the link.

Also if "the presence on Iraqi territory of a terrorist group associated, trained and inspired by Al-Qaeda" means a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, then there is an equal link between GWB and Al-Qaeda!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM

T-

Are you claiming that the Bush administartion's PR War Machine didn't make staements that implied a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq in the mad-dash to war?

Yes_______

No________

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Olive Whatnoll
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 08:51 AM

It's time I weighed in 'ere and delivered the final fecking words on this subject. WMDs was NOT found in bloody Iraq! Wot was found was a hellish lot o' sand and sandstorms, camels, poor ragged Iraqi sods wifout much to look forward to, a bloody huge lot of oil, some ancient museum fings wot got stolen, and a bloody great opportunity for Tony-fecking-Blair to flex 'is tiny lit'le muscles alongside of 'is surrogate daddy figure George Bush, that's wot!

Now shut the feck up.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 08:54 AM

Answer Bobert:

The links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were already established and known about, Bush and Co., did not have to "imply" anything with regard to Iraq/Al-Qaeda Linkage any reference to it was based on fact.

What Ron Davies was trying to put across was that GWB attempted to link Saddam/Iraq to being part of the attacks of the 11th September 2001, which of course they were not. The President and his Administration at the time made it perfectly clear that they were not.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 09:07 AM

Oh my god. Two sentences, two stunningly wrong statements. Read the damn link! Read the 911 commission report. Read something outside of Fox News.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 09:36 AM

TIA:

No matter to Teribus. He gets paid by the sentence (or by the word or by the "trick"). That's what a real whore does....

I note that he's "bravely turned his tail and fled" from my posts. No "Black Knight" he....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 10:40 AM

All right, we'll call it a draw....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 10:46 AM

GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - 01 Dec 05 - 09:36 AM

On the contrary Arne, my little American Viking, you've simply been relegated to Bobert's Division. I generally tend to not bother responding to his posts because like yours they are so full of fanciful, unsubstatiated twaddle, that they are not worth reading let alone considering them serious enough to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM

GUEST olive whatnol sums things up nicely.

Public opinion in USA/UK, and the rest of the world no longer care what links were made by whom, or who was complying with what.
The overwhelming majority now believe that they were deceived by their evil and incompetent leaders and in the weeks to come will demand the safe return of our troops.

Subsequently the will also demand the heads of those who engineered this fiasco.
What Teribus says on these pages is of no significance, the damage has been done and all trust has been forfeited.

The status of politicians has reached an all time low both here in the UK and I believe also in America.
Forget the apologists and look to a positive future, the people supported by those on the right here, have been exposed for what they really are,...Rejoice...Rejoice.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM

TIA - 01 Dec 05 - 10:40 AM

"All right, we'll call it a draw...."

You are bloody having me on, right? Not on your life matey!!

To your....."Oh my god. Two sentences, two stunningly wrong statements. Read the damn link! Read the 911 commission report. Read something outside of Fox News."

You expect me to roll over and say, "Oh my God TIA, How right you are, how could have have been so foolish, you have said that i am wrong, without explain any why or any wherefor, and I must automatically accept this as the gospel truth" Got news for you - NOT AS LONG AS MY ARSE POINTS DOWNWARDS.

I did not have to take your advice I had already read your damn link and the links contained therin. I have read the 911 Commission Report in its entirety. Odd as though it may sem to you we do not get Fox News where I live so their influence on my opinions is negligable.

With regard to the Slate Article - the person introducing the spin here is Fred Kaplan himself. With regard to the Seattle PI Article I am amazed that Mr. F. Kaplan wasn't sued. Now if you want me to state exactly what the 911 Commission did say and if you want me to rip to shit what Mr F. Kaplan said in his article sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph to show exactly who introduced the spin into what somebody actually did say, all well and good I will do it - your case will not be enhanced, and I am prepared to bet the farm on the points raised you will respond to one of them, as that is the way with the wooly left, anti-war, anti-Bush Fraternity here on Mudcat, presented with an arguement based on verifiable fact you run, you hide behind personal attack, you waffle, you deflect. Doesn't worry me because I will return to hit you with the same facts, time, after time, after time, because thewy do not stop being facts, the rational behind them, which you do not and cannot counter, never changes.

Call it a draw - You have got to be kidding - on this issue you will be ripped to shit - and you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 09:46 PM

Congrates, Arne...

Gettin' demoted ot the 'Bobert Divsion" is like gettin a major promotion!!!

Yeah, T-Promoter/Demoter, gets boxed in now and again and so his favorite trick when boxed in is to "ignore" (demote) the person who had him in his sights...

I've had T-Naked in my sights a couple times but, ahhhhhh, just din't have the heart to take him out... He'll say he doesn't know what I'm talkin' 'bout here but he knows the real deal...

So, being "demoted", Arne is cause fir celebration... You got a 'round in real close to him... He don't like that... He likes to be the one who issues the "proved liar" merit badges rather than pinnin' one on himself but that's just the way T-Dodger is...

So, tonight I tip my glaass to you... I'm not too sure what you wrote that came so close to rousin' t outta his bunker, but it musta shook the heck outta him...

BTW, you catch Bush's "Plan for Victory" (see new thread)???

Haha... Very reminescent of the Nixon paln in '68 which got another 20,000 of my brother's killed in Nam, including a couple I graduated military school with and who were my friends...

Heck with "Plans for Victory"... Iraq-mire was lost before Bush invaded... What we need is "Plan For Accepting Just How Much a Drunk Frat Boy Can Do Wrong"...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 10:34 PM

Ripped to shit MY arse. Your "facts" are hardly such. You are delusional my good fellow. I (and the rest of the woolly left - who have been proven right again and again and again) will not concede. Point to ONE waffle please. Point to ONE deflect please. Us woolly lefters have been saying the same damn thing for years now. The record is right here on Mudcat. So please, do me the honor of promoting me to the Bobert Division! If you don't, I will give you links to more twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 10:47 PM

Teribus--

Sorry to hear you still have a problem understanding English. Hope you get the remedial help you need soon--then perhaps you'll have a prayer of making sense.

Where is the old Teribus?--he at least made the Bushite view coherent--if still wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Olive Whatnoll
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 10:58 PM

Cor! If I 'ad a dog or a budgerigar wot was as mentally defishent as you, Mr Teribbus Horribilis, I would 'ave the bloody fing put down! Why don't YOU go to Iraq and see if you can find them WMDs? A genious loik you ought to be able to do it if anyone can. Ah, yes, I can just see it...a few weeks from now...on the telly... "Britons are gobsmacked and deeply saddened to 'ear that Terribus Horribilis, a famous Blair backer, 'as been kidnapped by the Iraqi insurgents and 'eld for a gigantic ransom of 85 million quid...specially seein' that no one 'as been found wot's willin' to pay it!" I would pity them Arab fellahs because you would talk 'em all into insensibility if not insanity. If they done away wif you it would be self-defence against cruel and unusual treatment. That's the way I sees it. Bloody 'ell, wot a lot of wasted time 'ere, isn't it? Why not discuss the soccer 'ooligans or somefink loik that wot provides a little possibility for real debate? That's wot I say. This is a lot of rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 11:25 PM

Rubbish, Whatnoll, is in thw eyes of the beholder... I think you said it quite well...

Yeah, T-DraftDodger, why don't you sign up fir Iraq duty???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 01:52 AM

Teribus:

I will return to hit you with the same facts, time, after time, after time, because thewy do not stop being facts, the rational behind them, which you do not and cannot counter, never changes.

Ya misspelled "talking points and lies".

As for you comments on Kaplan, here in the United States, we have a First Amendment (read, e.g., "Make No Law" by Anthony Lewis). Easy of you to dismiss Kaplan and say he should have been sued. Harder to do the actual spadework and show that he's wrong, eh?

TIA: Us woolly lefters have been saying the same damn thing for years now.

Ayup. I pointed out before the war that Chalabi was spinning us for his own purposes and that the intelligence wasn't worth shite (here, and I predicted (here) in the first week that there would be more casualties after the invasion was over (actually didn't know how right I would be there; I was proved a freakin' geenyus by Dubya and his crew). And I ain't no psychic. I just read widely, and actually try to understand what is going on (doesn't mean taking what anyone, much less the maladministration, says as gospel truth and flipping quotes around).

Pretty good indication that I know what the "Eff" I'm talking about. Doubt that Teribus can come up with any kind of track record like that. So he's reduced to trying to tell us all that black is white and that he's still "right, right, right" sans any evidence .... Well, I guess that we can acknowledge that he's "right". Faaaaaarrrrrr right.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 08:15 AM

And not to be spliitin' hairs here but as Arne has pointed out, there have been alot more casualties since "Mission Accomplished" way back when...

And BTW, this phase of the war, if I am not mistaken, has now lasted longer than the Korean War...

BTW, Part 2, if the mission was to remove Saddam Hussien, then why didn't the troops come home then???

And, BTW, Part 3, how do you spell "Iraqmire"???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 09:45 PM

Teribus--

Quiz: What is meant by the following sentences?

a) "Iraq has sent bomb-making and document-forgery experts to work with al-Queda."
b) "Iraq also provided al Queda with chemical and biological weapons training."
c) "And an al Queda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases."

Is it possible this could be alleging a link between Iraq and al Queda? To a rational mind, it's just possible.

To yours, evidently not.

Anytime I or anybody else quote Bush or one of his "team" linking Iraq and al Queda up to the 2003 invasion, that's "taking it out of context".

Sorry, it only takes so many "exceptions to the rule" before the "rule" is shot to kingdom come. In fact, in this case, the "exception" is the rule--check also the 2003 State of the Union address, which I cited earlier, as well as others' citations.

Once more with feeling--Bush and his cronies engaged in a steadily increasing and eventually successful propaganda campaign to link Saddam and al Queda between about mid 2002 and the Iraq invasion.

This is a fact--and you have provided no contrary evidence.    I and others have provided many direct quotes from Bush and co during the period in question--supporting this statement. But you still disagree. Fine--would you mind coming up with just one direct quote by Bush--with specific date and source, of course, and during the 2002-2003 period---which says that Saddam had nothing to do with al Queda?

It's a reasonable request. Let's see what you come up with.

Sorry Teribus (pun intended)--you really should have picked out a more seaworthy vessel before lashing yourself to the mast.

Alternatively--Mr. Custer--even though this is an election year and you were the youngest general in the Union army, I don't think you'll be going for the Republican nomination any time soon.

The crowning irony of all this is--I'll bet a nickel you do realize that Bush carried on a campaign 2002-2003 linking Saddam and al Queda. (I suspect your buddy Bearded Bruce also realizes this).

It's just that you've denied it a few times--so now you feel you can't lose face by backing down--perhaps especially since you've also already had to admit that the US had no right to cite UN resolutions as a basis for invasion--UN resolutions are to be enforced by the UN and groups authorized by the UN to do so---which the US in this case emphatically was not.

Your case is crumbling around you--and it's painful to admit it

Pobre cito.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:02 PM

Ron,

"Teribus -01 Dec 05 - 08:54 AM

The links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were already established and known about, Bush and Co., did not have to "imply" anything with regard to Iraq/Al-Qaeda Linkage any reference to it was based on fact."

Now then Ron what do you not understand about that sentence? Because you obviously are having some difficulty judging by the questions you are asking.

"What Ron Davies was trying to put across was that GWB attempted to link Saddam/Iraq to being part of the attacks of the 11th September 2001, which of course they were not. The President and his Administration at the time made it perfectly clear that they were not."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:16 PM

Where's the direct quote saying that Bush made it clear there was no link between al Queda and Saddam? Of course, with source and date.

We've given you plenty--we're coming to the-- pardon the bluntness--put up or shut up stage.

I hope you'll excuse my hesitancy to accept what you say without a source--since you've always up to now been totally reliable and never once misled us.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,mirsy
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:30 PM

I am not impressed yet. Please, more statistics. And more quotations from Mr Bush, etc. Remember, you could save the world by convincing me that you are right and Bush is either:

1. a great leader of the Free World

or:

2. a threat to the whole world

I may BE the 100th monkey! Convincing me could do it. Come on, Teribus! Come on, you haters of Teribus! I am waiting desperately for the quintessential post that will utterly and absolutely prove once and for all that George Bush is a glorious saviour or a blood-sucking moronic destroyer of all that is decent. I MUST know!

And I require a post of at least 500 well chosen words on that. Within the next, say, five days or so...

Get to it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:37 PM

So now you are backing off and saying Bush was just saying there was no link between Saddam and   11 September 2001. Sorry, that won't fly either.

Let's have just one quote by Bush--with source and date-- from the period mid-2002 to the Iraq invasion in which he makes it clear there is no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001.

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:45 PM

Gee, Guest mirsy--

Hope whoever is forcing you to read this thread lets you up soon.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:49 PM

One of the problems with tryin' to pin anything on the Bushites is that they constantly tell different stories...

Yeah, on the whole, they are very much on their message but once in a whikle one will, ahhhh, come close to tellin' the truth, just in case they get called down...

But the message, irregardless of ht very infrequent lettin' of the truth, is this: Saddam = Al Qeada = Nukes = WMD's...

That's, irregardless of an occasional back-handed qualifier has been and continues tom be their message...

They have no othwer choice. They decided to do the invasion and now thay have no other choice but to spin, spin, spin.... Any excuse for invadin' Iraq is game... Lets see??? Who haven't they blamed... Oh yeah... They haven't gottenb 'round to blamin' Alfred E Newman yet...

What Me Worry...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:53 PM

teribus says - "The links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were already established and known about..."

Really??? How about a source. Was the source a Mr. Chalabi by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:18 AM

Hi Ron,

Example 1 - One Quote as requested - Dick Cheney:
From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

Example 2 - One Quote as requested - George W Bush:
'We've Had No Evidence' of link to 9-11 (George W. Bush Sep. 17, 2003)

Q: Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th.

THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Similar statements made in the immediate aftermath of 911 attacks were made by Colin Powell in an interview on the steps of the UN Building. Condalezza Rice can also be quoted making the same statement.

The content of the PDB's relating to this subject in the immediate aftermath of 911 are now all public knowledge and support what is stated above

I realise that the GWB quote is outside your time line by about six months, but it is clear enough. Now its your turn - Please refer us to any direct quote in the period you have stipulated where President George W. Bush clearly stated that Iraq WAS directly involved with the attacks of 11th September, 2001. Note direct quote/transcript - NOT what some sound bite edited by a journalist or TV station to suit THEIR spin put out into circulation - i.e. I want what the man said NOT what some people THOUGHT he said, NOT what some people wanted others to THINK he said.

Your post Ron of 24 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM doesn't really cover the bill -
Teribus 23 Nov 2005 4:40 PM--G W Bush "establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001).

And how long did that last? About 20 minutes?

Neither Bush nor his minions ever thereafter implied that Saddam and the events of 11 September 2001 were linked?"

Plain FACT is Ron they didn't, they did exactly what I stated that they did, they established very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:33 AM

Teribus--

Well, where's that direct quote by Bush, with source and date, clearly stating Saddam had nothing to do with the events of 11 September 2001?

Having a little trouble locating it?

Not surprising, for the rather good reason that it doesn't exist.

Compare, however, this, from the State of the Union 2003: "Before September the 11 many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".

As I said earlier, now why do you suppose Bush used "September 11" and "Saddam Hussein" in that context? Could it be he wanted to foster a link in the minds of his listeners?

And just in case the association wasn't clear enough--for people with mental capacity like yours-- this:

"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein".


No, in fact those statements are not taken out of context. They are perfectly in context.

Have you ever read the entire speech? I'm sure, with the aid of a dictionary, you can slog through it in a few hours.


Bush and his cronies learned well from their mentor, Herr Goebbels. Between mid 2002 and the Iraq invasion they tried to, and in the end were successful in, confusing Saddam Hussein, 11 September 2001, and al Queda in the minds of the US public.

Now is the time for you to slink away and go back to watching "Big Brother"--or whatever else you do to improve your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:36 AM

"September the 11th"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:37 AM

Alfred E. Newman?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:41 AM

Is nuthin' sacred???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM

Regardless of whether or not they ever clearly stated a link between Saddam and 9/11, it certainly was (and to a large extent, continues to be) their intention for the US public to make that connection in their minds, and they have done everything they could to foster that link in the minds of the general public (perhaps just short of coming right out and saying it).

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:50 AM

Teribus--


Now go back, consult your calendar, and tell me whether your quote is from BEFORE the invasion.

My calendar seems to indicate that 8 September 2003 and 17 Septmber 2003 were after the invasion.

Your assignment was to find such a quote from the period leading up to the invasion--between mid 2002 and the invasion, as I've said many times before.

What Bush or his cronies said after the invasion is immaterial.


My point is that the propaganda campaign to confuse 11 September 2001, Saddam Hussein and al Queda in the minds of the US public obviously took place in the period leading up to the invasion--its purpose was to prepare the US public for the invasion.

Duh.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:05 AM

So. Teribus--which came first--20 March 2003, the day of the invasion, or 8 September 2003 (or 17 September 2003), the dates of your quotes?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:11 AM

8th September 2003???? Where the hell does 8th September 2003 come into the equation.

Example 1 - One Quote as requested - Dick Cheney:
From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:

Interview excerpt quoted from - Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

Do you require it any clearer than that Ron???

CarolC - 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM

"Regardless of whether or not they ever clearly stated a link between Saddam and 9/11, it certainly was (and to a large extent, continues to be) their intention for the US public to make that connection in their minds, and they have done everything they could to foster that link in the minds of the general public (perhaps just short of coming right out and saying it)."

The above is purely CarolC's OPINION, to which, of course, she is perfectly entitled. What it is NOT is fact, and therefore should not be presented as such.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:27 AM

From the 2003 State of the Union Address delivered by President George W. Bush

"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein COULD resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he COULD provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

IMAGINE those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, THIS TIME armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."

Ron that is the context in which the single sentence you quote, ""Before September the 11 many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained". was used.

Now tell me where does he state clearly that Saddam Hussein, or Iraq had ANYTHING to do with the attacks of the 11th September 2001. What he is doing is drawing peoples attention to a POSSIBLE FUTURE THREAT.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:28 AM

No, its a fact. On the other hand, if we want to talk about opinions, pretty much all of your posts on this thread fall into that category.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:33 AM

Ah, so one of your quotes was from 8 September 2002--very clever.

But

1) Your 8 September 2002 citation by Cheney disassociating Saddam and 11 September 2001 is not in fact a quote from 8 September 2002. What you quote is that they both watched a clip from 2001. You say nothing that was actually said in 2002.

2) For some reason you have neglected to tell us what was said after Cheney and Russert watched the clip (FROM 2001). I suspect Russert pointed out that Cheney had changed his tune since that clip.

Very slick.

But you still have no quote FROM THE PERIOD MID 2002 TO THE INVASION (a clip from 2001 doesn't cut it)--to disassociate Saddam and 11 September 2001.

Once more--the propaganda campaign to confuse Saddam, 11 September 2001, and al Queda in the minds of the US public took place in the period mid-2002 to the invasion--its purpose was to prepare the public for the invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:37 AM

Teribus--

A clip--or a quote--from 2001--does not cut it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:41 AM

Teribus--

So you don't think "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein" is an attempt to link the two in the minds of Bush's listeners?"

Just how naive are you?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM

And "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained"--just pure coincidence that "Saddam" and "September the 11th" happened to be in that context?

Anything you say.

By the way--I have a real nice bridge for sale--interested?. You seem like a man who would appreciate a good bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:11 AM

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained"

Yeah, Ron. I think that's one of the more damning ones. What happened on 9/11 that would cause many in the world to change their belief that Saddam could be contained?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 04:26 PM

Ron, Carol C: Although it is irresistable to fight such nonsense when the facts and the written record are so clear. But, I've given up. It's definitely a draw

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 04:58 PM

Well, well, well...

Once again, T-Distrator, has moved the discussion away from the reality that the American people were given enough suggestive sellin' in the mad-dash-to-attack-Iraq so that even several months after them invasion, the Washington Post still found an alarming number of folks taht still believed the BIG THREE : Nukes, WMD and an Al Qaeda link...

How could they not with the constant poundin' of the 9/11 Drum...

I don't think that can be successfully argued against...

Yet here folks are argurin' on symantics tricky little "loopholes" that the Bush War PR Room came up with...

I remember the supposed mobile chemical labs that looked qutie menacing from 50 m iles above yet turned out to be rusted old junk in reality... Seems that rusty ol' junk was the rule rather thanthe exception when it came to Saddam's Iarq's defenses...

Heck with "Shock and Awe"... There realkly doesn't seem there was much of value to actually blow up...

Well, one thing is fir sure... One of the reasons that Saddam was reluctant to furnish documentation on just how ill-propared to defend his country is because, with his neighbors, had he shown all of his cards then maybe he felt if the US didn't attack hinm, one of his neigbors would...

But, no matter, Hans Blix was satisfied that the inspectors had Sddam's cooperation so there was never any real reason, of the ones provided before the attack, to invade Iraq... And, 20/20 hindsight, seems there hasn't been a decent reason the Bush War PR folks have come up after the invasion...

Which leads us very much back to what a lot of us have been saying all a long: The war is about oil and keeping the Bush administartion in power so it can continue its little redistribution of income away from the working class and poor toward the wealthy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 05:47 PM

A draw--not likely.

So far Teribus has stubbornly-- (indeed, beyond "stubbornly",-- as I noted earlier) refused to accept the fact that the Bush "administration" engaged in a propaganda campaign between mid 2002 and the invasion (March 2003) to convince the US public of a link between al Queda and 11 September 2001 on one hand and Saddam on the other.

It is so blazingly obvious to the rest of the world that it's clear the only reason Teribus refuses to accept it is damage to his own ego--especially since he's already had to concede another point-- that the US did not have UN authority to invade Iraq--so his delight in citing UN resolutions does him no good.

In the face of a blizzard of quotes establishing the above propaganda campaign, he has not come up with one quote--during the period in question--to contradict this.   As I said, the quote from 2001 has no bearing on the time period in question.

As for the ostensible "subject" of the thread--that has been and remains a joke.

As several of us have said, if it were true, Bush and his cronies would be shouting it from the rooftops--funny thing therefore that there hasn't been a press conference to announce this "hot news" .

Therefore Teribus' only accomplishment is the ability to continue to type drivel--he has not made one point.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 06:14 PM

Well, Ron, the *new & unimproved* version of the old T is nuthin' but T-Lite and T-Jerk, who came back, guns a' blazin', callin' anyone who didn't agree with him dumb "fu*ks" and "proven liars"...

Hmmmm? No wonder he'll fight to death, continuing to use whatever distrations he can think of, to keep folks off him...

Hey, I ain't never had to call nobody a "fu*k" in the years I been here, You haven't either, Ron... Yeah, folks like T-Jerk may not like having to be called to the carpet fir things they say but, hey, let one of us slip on one little insignificant point and he's ready to pounce with his "fu*ks" and "proven liars"...

Yeah, he knows his days are numbered....

I have been tempted to order him a suitable-for-framing "proven liar" certificate to hang over his pudder but, hey, some folks is pathological and they actaully don't realize just how far out of touch with the truth they are... So it wouldn't mean anyything to him at all...

He knows he's has messed up here so I predict that he's gettin' ready to split again, just like he did the last time when nuthin' was found in Iraq that backed up any of his hero's claims...

That's my take on it...

This guy wouldn't cop to jay-walkin', Ron...

But continue to shread his crap all you want....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 06:40 PM

Teribus is irrelevant.

The people who took us to war are still in power.
We need to expend less energy shouting at a deaf man, and more in working out what sort of administration is to replace those of Bush and Blair.

The Democrats seem a very bad alternative.
They dont appear to have the guts to lead. When Murtha changed his stance ,and called for withdrawal of troops, other leading Democrats failed to support him even though public opinion has swung strongly against the war

Historically, Democrats have been responsible for some of the worst crimes of US Imperialism.
It was the Democrat Truman who Atom bombed Japan, mainly to convince the Soviet Union of American "!superiority"

It was the Democrat Lyndon Johnson who escalated the Vietnam War ,started by Democrat John Kennedy.
The Democrats may have small differences on how to get the job done, but in reality their "job" is the same as the Republicans.

If the Iraq War hadn't turned out to be such a fiasco, Democrat politicians would be falling over themselves in an attempt to be associated with Bush and his fellow criminals.

So dont rely on the Democrats to fix America's foreign policy, its up to free thinking folks like Bobert, Tia , Carol,Ron and many others to work for an alternative to the Republicrats, and wipe the fil;th from your fine Constitution...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 06:44 PM

Seems like our govt just has a thing about controlling public opinion through the media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/politics/03propaganda.html

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:16 PM

Hate to tell ya, Ake, but the way I see it it woulodn't matter if the Dems did decide to have a backbone... In their case, they have been out gerrimandered with redistrictin'... Plus, in 90% of all races the canidate with the most money wins...

So, no, the Dems most likely won't be able to do a danged thing...

Unfortunately, what has to happen before the settin' will be right for either the Dems to assert themselves or the Green Party to replace the Dems as a real 2nd party, is not going to be too purdy...

What I have predicted is that Boss Hog will continue to flaunt his new found wealth as the working class stiffs continue to slide backwards... Now you may call this the "Bobert Prediction" but when the Southerners get squeezed too much they will turn the show around... Yeah, Boss Hog only thinks he understands Southern Man....

Yeah, Southern Man, likes his beer. He likes his country music, He likes his flag. He ain't fir abortions... He hates falg burners... But all this is just the fluff that Boss Hog has used as he uses Southern Man but...

...a day will come when Southern Man been squeezed too hard in the wallet. This is the part about what Boss Hog doesn't understand 'cause when Southern Man begins to turn, there won't me 'nuff "I'm sorry's" from Boss Hog to turn it 'round...

You know them million dollar buses that Boss Hog feels real comfy riding thru the South??? They willl become targets and there will be a rash of Boss Hog's killed and buses burned in the South... When that happens, and I very much fell it is heading thast way rapidly, then the country will be ready for a major correction...

But what progressives need to be doing is "stayin' our course" and not let the T-Diverters throw their crap in out path... They know that our message is pro-earth an' pro-human and theirs is based on greed, power and control...

Jus a mattter of time but at least we don't have to change the story, just be patient while perssistent...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:11 PM

Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 05:47 PM - Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!

Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM - Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!

Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 08:41 AM - Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!

Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 08:37 AM - Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!

Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 08:33 AM - Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!

Now DO COME ALONG you complete and utter TWAT you have been asked to provide SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE to back up your arguement TO DATE YOU HAVE given us absolutely NOTHING - Now get the fuck on with it or shut the fuck up. I have at least attempted to answer your questions, from your side I have noted nothing to back up any statement that you have made.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:19 PM

CarolC - 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM

"Regardless of whether or not they ever clearly stated a link between Saddam and 9/11, it certainly was (and to a large extent, continues to be) their intention for the US public to make that connection in their minds, and they have done everything they could to foster that link in the minds of the general public (perhaps just short of coming right out and saying it)."

This apparently is a FACT - CarolC please substantiate it.

Anything less than a direct quote/transcript from the office of the President of the United States of America to the effect that what you have stated above is true will not be accepted - because you see just because CarolC says so doesn't make it true.

By the way Ron Davies I want a direct quote from the President of the United States of America stating that Saddam Hussein or Iraq, or any rogue faction in Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with the atacks of 11th September 2001. Dig out.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:26 PM

I'd like to enter T-Hogs last two posts as "Exhibit A' and "Exhibit B" in the scenerio that I outlined above an' would galdly invite T-Mouth to drive thru the South in, oh, 'bout 3 years in his tour bus...

Awwww, heck, he prolly won't make it another 3 years... Seems to be a heart attack waitin' to happen...

What a waste???

Bobert

and....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:27 PM

...500...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:00 PM

In relation to Boberts posts:

"I generally tend to not bother responding to his posts because....they are so full of fanciful, unsubstatiated twaddle, that they are not worth reading let alone considering them serious enough to answer."

Bobert - 03 Dec 05 - 10:26 PM

And

Bobert - 03 Dec 05 - 10:27 PM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:12 PM

Oh, real cute, T-Cute...

I'm givin' you a 5.9 on cuteness but the usaul -5.9 on your two posts that I critiqued...

You are going down hill faster than a bullet with a tailwind, pal...

Yer really going to have to dig way down deep and try to find ways that are more old T-ish... Yer bosses are whisperin' behind yer back... They think you're not wrapped to tight... This ain't merely about gettin' a good evaluation but could mean yer job, pal...

Callin' folks "fu*ks" is out 'er din't you get the memo???

(Ahhhh, T... Was it the marriage that didn't work out??? Man, I can't believe that you have slipped so far but between you and me if yer bosses come an' talk with me I'll say that yer doing a fine job... Oughtta be easy fir me since gettin' my "proven liar" certificate in the mail.)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:29 PM

Anything less than a direct quote/transcript from the office of the President of the United States of America to the effect that what you have stated above is true will not be accepted

Bullshit.


Ron Davies, you should check out the link in TIA's 03 Dec 05 - 04:26 PM post.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:46 PM

Plus, T-Going-Down-Hill-Fast...

The ol' T would have known to put an apostophe in "Boberts posts" to show ownership rather that plural...

Sorry, pal, but I won't tell yer boss...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 07:54 AM

CarolC - 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM

"Regardless of whether or not they ever clearly stated a link between Saddam and 9/11, it certainly was (and to a large extent, continues to be) their intention for the US public to make that connection in their minds, and they have done everything they could to foster that link in the minds of the general public (perhaps just short of coming right out and saying it)."

I take it therefore that you cannot substantiate what you claim as being fact above then CarolC - Didn't think you could. No need to feel downhearted by it - neither can Ron who actually does believe that GWB or someone in his administration clearly stated that Saddam/Iraq had something to do with 911 attacks - only thing is while I can prove quite clearly that they didn't Ron cannot find one single statement to back up his contention. It's a trap that you can tumble into when instead of reading what somebody actually said, you rely on reports of what somebody else thought was said. Then like Ron you take single sentences in isolation and completely out of context to try and back up what you, at second-hand have accepted as what was said and meant.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 08:10 AM

CNN poll in Oct.

82% of all respondents would support a third party.

I suggest a one syllable party

The Fact Party.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:30 AM

Can't substantiate? No, that's not why I'm not bothering to comply with your demand. I'm not bothering with your demand because anyone but a five year old can see that you are, A. making up the rules as you go along, B. you change the rules to suit your own arguments, and C. you have not provided any of the same kind of documentation for your arguments that you are demanding from me.

Show us the direct quote/transcript from the office of the President of the United States of America telling us that, despite the accusations that have been made against him and his people that they have tried to insinuate a connection between Saddam and 9/11, the president and his administration unequivocally state that Saddam was not responsible for 9/11. Let's see you do that. Otherwise we can take everything you have said in this thread to be the total bullshit that it is.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:41 AM

..and BTW..

Military autopsy reports provide indisputable proof that detainees are being tortured to death while in US military custody. Yet the US corporate media are covering it with the seriousness of a garage sale for the local Baptist Church.

A recent American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posting of one of forty-four US military autopsy reports reads as follows: "Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq."

The ACLU website further reveals how: "a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was "undetermined" although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Another Iraqi detainee died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated. He was standing, shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth, at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries.

So read several of the 44 US military autopsy reports on the ACLU website -evidence of extensive abuse of US detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan 2002 through 2004. Anthony Romero, Executive Director of ACLU stated, "There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths." ACLU attorney Amrit Sing adds, "These documents present irrefutable evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations." Additionally, ACLU reports that in April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of "environmental manipulation" as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. So responsibility for these human atrocities goes directly to the highest levels of power.

A press release on these deaths by torture was issued by the ACLU on October 25, 2005 and was immediately picked up by Associated Press and United Press International wire services, making the story available to US corporate media nationwide. A thorough check of Nexus-Lexus and Proquest electronic data bases, using the keywords ACLU and autopsy, showed that at least 95percent of the daily papers in the US didn't bother to pick up the story. The Los Angeles Times covered the story on page A-4 with a 635-word report headlined "Autopsies Support Abuse Allegations." Fewer than a dozen other daily newspapers including: Bangor Daily News, Maine, page 8; Telegraph-Herald, Dubuque Iowa, page 6; Charleston Gazette, page 5; Advocate, Baton Rouge, page 11; and a half dozen others actually covered the story. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Seattle Times buried the story inside general Iraq news articles. USA Today posted the story on their website. MSNBC posted the story to their website, but apparently did not consider it newsworthy enough to air on television.

"The Randi Rhodes Show," on Air America Radio, covered the story. AP/UPI news releases and direct quotes from the ACLU website appeared widely on internet sites and on various news-based listservs around the world, including Common Dreams, Truthout, New Standard, Science Daily, and numerous others. Published on Friday, December 2, 2005 by CommonDreams.org Hard Evidence of U.S. Torturing Prisoners to Death Ignored by Corporate Media; by Peter Phillips; Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and Director of Project Censored.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:46 AM

..!

FBI Is Taking Another Look at Forged Prewar Intelligence
by Peter Wallsten, Tom Hamburger and Josh Meyer; Published on Saturday, December 3, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times   

WASHINGTON — The FBI has reopened an inquiry into one of the most intriguing aspects of the pre-Iraq war intelligence fiasco: how the Bush administration came to rely on forged documents linking Iraq to nuclear weapons materials as part of its justification for the invasion.

..read on..

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 06:35 PM

teribus - the link between Saddam and 911 was a highly orchestrated plot to deceive the American people and justify a war of aggression. The best source of the Bush administration was a conspiracy theorist (Mylroie). People like you and other right wingers try to discredit the left as conspiracy theorists which is a very shallow defense considering the basis of the link between Saddam and 911.

I am sick of listening to your self-righteous indignation and your attempt to deflect criticism. Its pretty obvious to the majority of people in this world that the Bush administration doesn't give a shit about the American people or any other people. They care only for profit at the expense of humanity.

Figure it out.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:25 PM

What Dianavan said....

You guys are in serious denial...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:34 PM

Bullshit!
Unless you can provide a handwritten admission by George W. Bush, that has been notarized by the Pope, and dated September 16, 2001 at 6:03 PM, that is only your opinion Bobert (and Dianavan and CarolC and Ron Davies). You proven liars have no proof, only unsubstantiated twaddle.







I am schooling at the feet of the master. HowmI doin?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:50 PM

Depends just on who the master is, TIA???

If it's T-Master then, ahhhh, maybe I wouldn't have led off with the "Bullsh*t"... Yeah, think I would have snuck it in a little letter... Maybe called a few folks "fu*ks" first... You know, a little foreplay....

Now as fir the likes of GUEAT A??? Who the heck knows... I'm not sure if GUEST A knows from one minute to the next???

Actaually, I think it's more like a croos bgetween T-Lite and the old and unimproved Martin...

In other words, needs a little polish... It ain't easy being a Bush apologist these days... Ya gotta be trained up "right"...

But a good start....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM

Teribus hefts the ol' goal posts and marches 'em another 20 yards towards the tennis courts...:

I take it therefore that you cannot substantiate what you claim as being fact above then CarolC - Didn't think you could. No need to feel downhearted by it - neither can Ron who actually does believe that GWB or someone in his administration clearly stated that Saddam/Iraq had something to do with 911 attacks.

I'll agree that it's difficult to find anyone in the maladministration making a "clear state[ment]" on anything. But this is just Teribus with his game of "Simon says"; his dip into Clintonesque parsing.

Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq. (And what do you suppose that link is supposed to do? Paint a picture through outlines and shadows of Saddam's hand on the controls of that 767, perhaps?) But Teribus is great at moving the goal posts and insisting on the Clintonesque parsings of Dubya's speeches in his "Simple Simon" game: Dubya didn't say "Simon says", so it don't count, you're out, ha-ha-ha....

And that's not even mentioning the claims of WoMD, which was the other big lie that Teribus wants you to forget about with his prevarications on this "Dubya didn't say 'Saddam and osama are secret homosexual lovers and Dubya's a bottom to boot" diversion of his. Don't let him muddy the waters. Dubya and company lied repeatedly.

Dubya couldn't stop lying afterwards, even, and invented this fantasy (or hallucination? -- scary...) about Saddam not letting the inspectors in (as I posted in an early article here).

I have still to see either Teribus, BeardedBruce, Geoduck, or any of the RW apologists here acknowledge this very strange and counter-factual statement of Dubya's. Tell me, folks, and give me an honest answer: Why did the Preznit of the United States make the following statement:

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, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.

That statement is truly mind-boggling! So, Teribus, what was up with Dubya when he said that??? Don't be shy to offer an opinion..... Is Dubya about prime for a tour of the funny farm? Or is he just the most despicable liar on the face of the planet right now?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 11:17 PM

Hmmmmm>>>

Sems to be a different story than the one that Hans Blix told the UN???

Like, what's that all about, T-Apologist????

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 11:44 PM

TIA, I think you're having altogether too much fun.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 11:58 PM

"Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.


Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming.""

---

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.

It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation.

Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.

But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives.

"One guy is associate of Cole bomber," the notes say, a reference to the October 2000 suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which had also been the work of bin Laden.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

---

From "Scoop" e-mag:

Bush Gang Swore Saddam Was Behind 9/11 In Lawsuit
Friday, 18 November 2005, 10:38 am
Opinion: Evelyn Pringle
Bush Gang Swore Saddam Was Behind 9/11 In Lawsuit

By Evelyn Pringle
Much to the dismay of President Bush, Americans can remember all on their own, without any coaching from Democrats, that in the run up to war in Iraq, it was top official from the administration who were making the claim that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden and that he was secretly involved to 9/11.

The fact that the administration's disinformation campaign was entirely successful is evidenced by an October 2004, Harris Poll, taken three weeks before the last presidential election, which reported that 62% of all voters, and 84% of those planning to vote for Bush, still believed that Saddam had ''strong links" to Al Qaeda, and that 41% of all voters, and 52% of Bush backers, believed that Saddam had ''helped plan and support the hijackers" who had attacked the country on 9/11.

As we now know, the basis for these allegations were false but the saddest part of the situation is that many Americans are just now beginning to realize that Bush knew the stories were false for more than a year when he cited them as justification for taking the country to war.

Documents recently declassified and made public show that the administration was warned by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002, that the tale about a trip to Prague by the leader of the 9/11 highjacker, Mohamed Atta, had come from an unreliable drunk, and that the story about Iraq training members of al Qaeda on the use of chemical and biological weapons was deliberately fabricated by an Iraqi defector.

A recent poll conducted by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, indicates that Americans recognize the significance of this revelation, where 57% of Americans now believe that Bush misled the country about prewar intelligence; a 52% majority of those polled say the war was not worth it; and by a 58% to 38% margin, Americans believe that Bush has not given good enough reasons to keep our troops in Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT

The debate over who was most responsible for convincing the nation that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 will probably continue for years but an important piece of the puzzle can be found by zeroing in on a woman by the name of Laurie Mylroie, that most people have probably never heard.

Mylroie had been pushing for an all-out war against Iraq for a decade. In the run-up to the first Gulf war, Mylroie, along with the recently fired New York Times reporter Judith Miller, wrote a book titled, "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf."

The original Iraq war obsession originated at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think-tank that served as a home base for the many neocons who were rendered powerless during the Clinton years such as Richard Perle, who became chairman of the Defense Policy Board under Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, who moved into the number-2 position at the Pentagon, and Newt Gingrich and John Bolton, to name just a few.

In 2000, at a time when Dick Cheney sat on AEI's board, the group's publishing arm put out a book by Mylroie titled, "A Study in Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America."

In the author's acknowledgement section of the book, Mylroie thanked a familiar case of characters, including John Bolton and the staff of AEI, for their assistance. She also wrote thanks to Scooter Libby for his "generous and timely assistance."

Mylroie noted that Paul Wolfowitz was instrumental to her in writing the book and said, "At critical times, he provided crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult." She said that Wolfowitz's wife (at the time), had "fundamentally shaped the book."

Neocon, Richard Perle, described the book as "splendid and wholly convincing,"

If Mylroie is to be believed, Saddam was involved in every anti-American terrorist event that took place since the early 1990s, from the bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which she says may have been "the work of both bin Laden and Iraq," to the federal building in Oklahoma City.

She also accuses Saddam of involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center even though the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the US Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the CIA, the National Security Council, and the State Department, all determined that there was no evidence of the Iraq's involvement in the attack back in the mid-1990s.

Mylroie has also claimed that the TWA flight 800 which crashed into Long Island Sound is a likely Iraqi plot even after a lengthily investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined that it was an accident.

She maintains that in 2000, Saddam provided the expertise for the bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors, even though no law enforcement agency has ever made such a claim. She even blames Saddam for the anthrax sent through the mail shortly after 9/11.

Once Bush became president, the neocons were brought back into power as either members of the administration or members of the influential Defense Policy Board and war against Iraq became the administration's obsession, with Mylroie and the hawks working hand and hand to promote the theory that Saddam was involved in every terrorist act against the US over the past decade.

After the attacks on 9/11, the race towards Iraq was on, and Mylroie's book was reissued by Harper Collins under the new title, "The War Against America." The foreword for the second edition was written by Woolsey, who described her work as "brilliant and brave."

The book's cover displayed an endorsement from Paul Wolfowitz which stated: "Provocative and disturbing ... argues powerfully that the shadowy mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing ... was in fact an agent of Iraqi intelligence."

In the book's acknowledgment, Mylroie thanks Wolfowitz for being "kind enough to listen to this work presented orally and later to read the manuscript. At critical times, he provided crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult." She also praised the assistance of John Bolton.

Now, a nutcase like Mylroie, if left to her own devices, would probably have been harmless. But when the neocons made her a consultant to the Pentagon, the position granted grossly misplaced credibility to her hair-brained conspiracy theories.

There is no doubt that she was hired to convince the world that Saddam played a role in 9/11 and although I don't know how much she was paid, its plenty obvious that the Bush team got a lot of bang for the buck.

In February 2003, Mylroie was featured for an interview on Canadian television where she discussed why Bush was going to war against Iraq and at the same time, emphasized the certainty of a Saddam-9/11 link. Shortly after the interview got underway, she stated:

"Listen, we're going to war because President Bush believes Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Al Qaeda is a front for Iraqi intelligence…[the U.S.] bureaucracy made a tremendous blunder that refused to acknowledge these links … the people responsible for gathering this information, say in the C.I.A., are also the same people who contributed to the blunder on 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans, and so whenever this information emerges they move to discredit it."

---

From CBS:

""From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election." "

---

From MSNBC:

Presidential brief
The president's daily brief, or PDB, for Sept. 21, 2001, was prepared at the request of President Bush, the Journal reported, who was said to be eager to determine whether any linkage between the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraqi regime existed.

And a considerable amount of the Sept. 21 PDB found its way into a longer, more detailed Central Intelligence Agency assessment of the likelihood of an al-Qaida-Iraq connection.

The Journal story reports that that assessment was released to Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, and other senior policy-makers in the Bush administration.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested from the White House the detailed CIA assessment, as well as the Sept. 21 PDB and several other PDBs, as part of the committee's continuing inquiry into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the months before the start of the war with Iraq in March 2003.

The Bush administration has refused to surrender these documents.

"Indeed," the Journal story reported, citing congressional sources, "the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004."

Long-alleged connection
After Sept. 11, the administration insisted that a connection existed between Iraq and al-Qaida. President Bush, in an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati, said the United States had "learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and gas."

And Vice President Cheney, in a September 2003 appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," alleged there was "a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."


Click for related content
Transcript of Cheney's "Meet the Press" appearance

But the National Journal report said that the few believable reports of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida "involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group."

Saddam considered al-Qaida "as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime," the Journal reported. "At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks" of al-Qaida with Iraqi intelligence operatives as a way to get more information about how the organization worked, the Journal said.

Journal: Little has changed
The Journal story asserts that little has changed to refute the initial absence of information linking Saddam and the al-Qaida network.

"In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed" between Iraq and al-Qaida, the Journal reported.

---

Common Dreans Newscenter:

"9/11 Commission: No Link Between Al-Qaida and Saddam
by Hope Yen

WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.

In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were ``apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to ``think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added.

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.


Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission) Gov. Thomas Kean looks on at the beginning of their final two-day hearing at the National Transportation Security Board conference center in Washington, June 16, 2004. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks began its final hearings on Wednesday before delivering its findings at the end of next month. REUTERS/Larry Downing
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a ``collaborative relationship.''

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq."...

---

The BBC offers this study on how Bush and his galoots 'conflated' Saddam with 9-11 over and over.

These took me all of ten minutes to find...


A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 12:03 AM

One other:
From http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842

Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence

6/20/03

Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.

But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."



Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."

Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 06:19 AM

Bobert:

Sems to be a different story than the one that Hans Blix told the UN???

The date of that Dubya hallucination is also significant: July 14, 2003!

Here's Teribus's (and BeardedBruce's) response: *crickets chirping*....

That statement of Dubya's (which he repeated in a later speech) has simply no defence. And shows that Dubya's a flat-out liar (or psychotic, take your pick). At the point you admit that, it becomes morally indefensible to back that lying, war-mongering sum'o'a'b*** on anything he says. When he shows that he has no compunctions about flat out lying to you and me, bald-faced, lying, trivially shown to be so, you get the idea the guy's a pathological liar, and you can't trust a single word he says....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 07:49 PM

Alas, Arne, my little viking, Teribus has hefted no goal posts:
CarolC's statement of 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM, remains purely her opinion.

Now so far, between a few of us, the actual words spoken by GWB and members of his administration, within context have been provided. To counter that we have been offered red-herring after red-herring, rumour, cherry-picked sentences taken completely out of context and unsubstantiated opinion. When you are asked to provide links or references, by way of substantiation, you pointedly ignore the subject and then accuse us of 'moving the goal posts'. That is not debate Arne that is wriggling, that is evasion, that is total lack of confidence in your sources of information.

Arne, I would only believe too readily that you find it difficult to find any statement actually made by members of the current US Administration to support or substantiate points put forward by the likes of yourself - Your English comprehension skills at best are severely impaired, to such a degree, that you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on.

Now, Arne boy here would like us all to believe that the following never happened, or if it did it was irrelevant:

The Clinton Administration did not write Regime Change in Iraq into US Foreign Policy - Fact is that he did, and I can prove it - Nobody in the US complained when he did it .

The Clinton Administration unilaterally ordered attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq. He did this without first obtaining the consent, or approval from the US Senate, The US House of Representatives, or from the United Nations - Nobody complained

His justification for launching "Desert Fox" was Iraq's failure to comply with requirements and conditions laid down in UN Security Council Resolutions agrred to at Safwan by Saddam Hussein's Government - Nobody complained about that. Where were the cries of illegal war.

But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations.

Afghanistan had the general concensus of world opinion behind it, maybe not the anti-war, anti-Bush, peace-at-any-price brigade, but enough of the world all the same.

Iraq came into the frame because of non-compliance with outstanding UNSC Resolutions, it was evaluated as a potential threat, it supported international terrorist groups and could possibly support a far more serious attack on the USA than those of 911 - SERIOUS FUTURE POSSIBLE THREAT - i.e. it requires to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Mark you I would not expect Arne, to follow this, he is the guy who, as the pilot of an aircraft, does not regard himself being under attack until after he has been shot down - bit late then old son, but then fortunately you will hopefully never be in a position to have to make those sort of judgement calls.

As to the...."Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq."

Unfortunately that is what they have been quoting - themselves, or journalists reports of what that journalist thought was said. Not so fussed about the links between Saddam and Iraq Arne, it would indeed be strange if there were no links between Saddam and Iraq - after all at the time in question he was actually running the place in a pretty hands-on fashion. The links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda were known of from intelligence reports pre-dating GWB's arrival in the White House. But the message that Ron Davies was trying to put across was that GWB and members of his administration were wandering around stating that Saddam/Iraq had a hand in the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001, when in actual fact the direct opposite was the case, I can again prove and give clear examples of that, Ron Davies and the rest of you cannot come up with a single quote to substantiate what you believe to be the case.

The claims of WoMD?? No big lie Arne & Co. Details relating to the unaccounted for stocks, munitions and precursor chemicals thought to exist in Iraq were brought to the attention of the Governments of the World by the United Nations - Not by George W. Bush - Not by Tony Blair. Did GWB and Tony Blair believe the UNSCOM Report - Of course they did, so did everybody else at the time - otherwise explain exactly how 1441 got passed. Don't take my word for it, the speeches made by all 15 Ambassadors sitting on the UNSC when 1441 was adopted are a matter of record - They are what they actually said at the time Arne, not what some anti-war, anti-Bush Blogger bashed out on the subject using 20 x 20 hindsight. Again I can provide substantiation for what I am saying - Arne & Co will find it somewhat more difficult.

Arne, at his cherry-picking best,..."Dubya couldn't stop lying afterwards, even, and invented this fantasy (or hallucination? -- scary...) about Saddam not letting the inspectors in (as I posted in an early article here)."

When was UNMOVIC formed Arne?

We know that UNSCOM were withdrawn on the advice of the US Government (Clinton) in December 1998 just before "Desert Fox" was launched. After "Desert Fox" did Saddam invite the UNSCOM Inspectors back into Iraq Arne? - No he did not Arne.

UNMOVIC was formed to replace UNSCOM on 17th December 1999, almost a year to the day that UNSCOM left Iraq. That was the UNSCOM that Saddam had run ragged, deceived, threatened and intimidated for the best part of seven years (Don't bother disputing that Arne, for the proof is overwhelmingly in favour of what I have just said).

Now UNMOVIC, duly constituted by the United Nations were allowed back into Iraq when Arne? 1999 - No; 2000 - No; 2001 - No; 2002 - Yes, right towards the end of the year. Now you can tell us why, you can tell us how that was achieved, can't you Arne. You can also tell us exactly who had kept the UNMOVIC Inspectors out of Iraq in 1999, 2000, 2001 and the first three quarters of 2002 - Couldn't have been Saddam Hussein could it Arne?

Now then Arne let's take a look at the President's Statement, made at a Press Conference during question time on the 14th July, 2003, and let us all remember that AT THAT TIME inspections by the US Survey Group were still ongoing:

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely."

Now Arne that was true, or are you going to tell us that there were no activities, or programmes, proscribed under the terms of applicable UN Security Council Resolutions taking place in Iraq. Please don't because they are easily verifiable.

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

As stated above he had kept the UNSCOM Team out for a year, UNMOVIC out for the best part of three years. Once allowed back in they were not given the full co-operation they were required to have from day 1, despite what Bobert might say to the contrary, the words of Hans Blix, Report to the UN Security Council 7th March 2003:

"Mr. President,

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat RELUCTANT CO-OPERATION, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.

This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is NOW asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is REQUIRED under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions that I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE "IMMEDIATE" CO-OPERATION."


"And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

The reasonable request - "You and your regime have 48 hours to quit the country, or we, along with our allies, will remove you by force."

GHWB's Coalition with full UN backing consisted of 34 different countries back in 1990/1991.

GWB's Coalition consisted of 38 different countries who shared the view of the US that Saddam Hussein was better off being removed from the scene.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:01 PM

"As to the...."Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq."

Unfortunately that is what they have been quoting - themselves, or journalists reports of what that journalist thought was said."

Horsepucky. Teribus my good fellow, just as you asked, I gave you direct quotes from GWB himself with dates and links. Anyone can simply browse up the thread for proof of this. Just like your heros in the Bush misadministration, you are absolutely brazen in your fantastical claims.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:02 PM

Ahhhhh, do you do drugs, T???

I mean, what a lot of crap....

First of all, regime change and killin' upwards of 100,000 innocwent people are TWO different scenerios...

Hey, you wanta regime change??? Why not off Saddam???? Why won't you ever answer this basic question???? No, you want to talk endlessly about UN resolutions like they mean andanged thing... Tell ya' what, a UN resolution and 89 cents will get you a 12 ounce cup of coffee at the loacl convience store...

Now TO WIT: George Bush never actually linked Al Qeada with Saddam.... Bull feathers, apl... In one speech after another in the mad-dash-to-war referance of 9/11 were sprinkled in... Waht was that all about, T??? Just seasoning???

Now, T WIT (PartB): Saddam has been removed. Time to leave, right???

(Well no, BObert, we goptta do this and we gotta do that and we gotta have a McDonald's on every corner....)

Hmmmmmmmm> Like when will this endless list of reason of why we are in Iraq ever end???

(It won't, BObert... The US, which represents over 80% of the occupation forces, is in this thing for the long haul... Ain't about no reasons 'cept oil and stategic military reasons...)

This ain't 'bout Clinton, T-Distratcor, it's about yer man...

And, BTW, maybe you'd like to provide the peanut gallery with the troop percentages of the "34 different countries" that make up this coalition???

(No, BObert, T-Dodger prolly won't want them numbers made too public...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:14 PM

Oh! That last post of Teribus (05 Dec 05 - 07:49 PM) came soooooo close! So close to meeting my stringent requirements. I am almost convinced now that George Bush is right, dead right, and quite possibly the saviour of humanity and civilization.

But...

I am still wavering slightly.

Bobert seems so sure of himself. And CarolC is also very convincing. As for Ron Davies....wow...

Perhaps Bobert, CarolC, and Ron are right after all and Teribus has no real credibility.

Oh, the angst! I just can't decide.

I feel, Teribus, that if you were just to make one more post that's just a teeny bit longer (like another 300 words) and more detailed than any you have done yet...that might do it. I would then be on your side and you would have WON FOR ALL TIME!

Do it, man. Do it. I can't stand much more of this not knowing who the evil guys are in the world so I can know where I stand when the shit hits the fan. Do you realize how much time I am losing on account of this dilemma? My life is on hold. I haven't washed in a week. Do it!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:35 PM

That's right, T-Wordy... Just another 300 words... Heck, you can do 300 in yer sleep...

Yeah, I', waitin' on those 300 words myself... Over the last 3 years we've had 'bout 3 million of yer words and thjay haven't added up to nmuch more than one one syllable word: crap...

But may the law of averages are with you... Maybe this will be the day where you find 300 words when mixed up properly between verbs, nouns, promouns, adjectives, articles, prepositions and adverbs that will give GUEST, Mirsy, a good nights sleep...

But given yer record, I doubt it... Heck, if the first 3 millin didn't do the trick then I reckon the next 300 won't either...

BTW, you haven't ver addressed the question about the Hans Blix report to the UN... You seem to glide right over it like it was a radiation pit...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM

Good to see everybody's been having fun.

Teribus--

What did I tell you earlier about losing your temper as the quickest way to lose an argument?

You haven't learned much.

Still waiting for a quote from Bush-- between mid-2002 and the March 2003 invasion-- in which Bush clearly disassociates 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam.

As I've said-- more than once, I believe-- it is clear to anyone who can think and read that Bush and co. did in fact carry out a campaign to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 during the above period..

Arne, Amos, and I, among others have provided many citations--and every one I have cited is within the specified period, as are a good number of theirs. You have still not come up with one quote by Bush between mid-2002 and March 2003 to support your assertion.

Based on your postings, especially that of 3 Dec 2005 10:11 PM, it seems I may have possibly struck a nerve. But you might also remember that cursing doesn't usually win debates--except possibly in your circles.   In fact it's a rather clear indication of the
bankruptcy of your position.

It certainly is true that "fuck all absolutely nothing" is an unanswerable argument--congratulations. It shows all the subtlety for which you are famous, shows your unrivalled command of English, and addresses all the controversial points with an amazingly deft hand.

We wouldn't have expected less from you.

I stand in awe.

The crowning irony, as I said earlier, is that I'll wager you do in fact realize that Bush and his cronies did carry out the propaganda campaign in question in between mid-2002 and March 2003. But you made the error of alleging that he did not--and now it's too painful to back down.

You might want to start thinking before you post.

I'm so sorry your ego is so tender.


Now, about that bridge I have for sale? I can give you a real deal on it.


But, be that as it may, I want you to know it's always a pleasure to read your postings or do any business with you.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 10:36 PM

Teribus my good fellow, just as you asked, I gave you direct quotes from GWB himself with dates and links. Anyone can simply browse up the thread for proof of this.

Teribus thinks that if he pretends all that documentation isn't there, maybe we won't notice it. He probably also believes that if he closes his eyes, he will become invisible.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 10:51 PM

Well, CarolC, it's gettin' close to T-Invisinble to do his disappearin' act, just like he did fater the mad-dash-to-war...

Reassignments, you know...

Hope he don't get reassigned to Tweedsblues...

Send him to, ahhhhh. Mars...

Yeah, I hear them Marcians will believe just about anything you tell 'um... Good place for T-MarsBound...

Let him make his mark there... He's strikin' out here big time...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 12:13 AM

Teribus continues his sycophancy:

Alas, Arne, my little viking, Teribus has hefted no goal posts:
CarolC's statement of 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM, remains purely her opinion.

Sure, you did. You are demanding that Dubya use precise and very specific words (your "Simon Says" ploy) to assert that Dubya claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that wasn't the issue, was it? It was whether Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots. That's a "red herring" on your part (although, as shown above, there was an effort to link Saddam specifically to the 9/11 attacks, and there was the insinuation that he was in fact involved [see the Mylroie article]). Actually, going further back up-topic, the original issue was Saddam's WoMD (of which there really were none).

Now so far, between a few of us, the actual words spoken by GWB and members of his administration, within context have been provided.

You misspelled "carefully gleaned and cherry-picked". You accuse us of cherry-picking, but our point (that a link was made between Saddam and al Qaeda) stands even if you post tons of quotes where Dubya doesn't make that assertion (and you have yet to honour a request for a quote where Dubya affirmatively asserts that there was no such tie). But your claim that Dubya made no such claim is disproven by a single quote showing he did so. As has been provided (more than once).

To counter that we have been offered red-herring after red-herring, rumour, cherry-picked sentences taken completely out of context and unsubstantiated opinion....

How about quotes directly from the ass's mouth?

When you are asked to provide links or references, by way of substantiation, you pointedly ignore the subject and then accuse us of 'moving the goal posts'. That is not debate Arne that is wriggling, that is evasion, that is total lack of confidence in your sources of information.

Nope. The "goal post moving" had to do with the claim of Saddam's involvement with 9/11, rather than the broader claim of a Saddam/al Qaeda link (but see above for more on even your more restricted claim).

Arne, I would only believe too readily that you find it difficult to find any statement actually made by members of the current US Administration to support or substantiate points put forward by the likes of yourself - Your English comprehension skills at best are severely impaired, to such a degree, that you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on.

ROFL. I would believe that you can't construct an intelligible paragraph. Witness this last one. But if I can guess at your point: no, I rely oon what reputable media (and even disreputable media, such as "www.whitgehouse.gov") report on what the maladministration said.

Now, Arne boy here would like us all to believe that the following never happened, or if it did it was irrelevant:

The Clinton Administration did not write Regime Change in Iraq into US Foreign Policy - Fact is that he did, and I can prove it - Nobody in the US complained when he did it .

"Straw man". I haven't said any such thing.

The Clinton Administration unilaterally ordered attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq. He did this without first obtaining the consent, or approval from the US Senate, The US House of Representatives, or from the United Nations - Nobody complained

Ditto last comment. Teribus here thinks I shold be responsibel for other people's opinions. I've tendered my own on Clinton's actions. But this persiflage of Teribus's is the "tu quoque" fallacy, and hardly rfelevant to whether Dubya is a horse's arse.

[snip SOS]

But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations.

News flash: Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!!!! As for the authorisation to invade, that wasn't given explicitly (if we're to use Teribus's "standards" for asserting a position). Various folks thought that force should be threatened but many also thought that was a last resort if Saddam didn't comply, and there was considerable feeling amongst these that Saddam was complying tolerably ... and that we were no where near a last resort state. In fact, the UN Security Council refused to give Dubya an OK for his invasion (and Dubya reneged on his promise to force at least a show of hands, something that Teribus has studiously ignored this entire thread).

Afghanistan had the general concensus of world opinion behind it, maybe not the anti-war, anti-Bush, peace-at-any-price brigade, but enough of the world all the same.

News flash for your: Afghanistan is not located in Iraq. Moving the goal posts a couple thousand Km, eh?

Iraq came into the frame because of non-compliance with outstanding UNSC Resolutions, it was evaluated as a potential threat, it supported international terrorist groups and could possibly support a far more serious attack on the USA than those of 911 - SERIOUS FUTURE POSSIBLE THREAT - i.e. it requires to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

So the "intgelligence" would have you believe. The intelligence was crap. I knew it at the time (and posted a link to prove it). Others did too. Dubya should have known (and quite possibly did).

Mark you I would not expect Arne, to follow this, he is the guy who, as the pilot of an aircraft, does not regard himself being under attack until after he has been shot down - bit late then old son, but then fortunately you will hopefully never be in a position to have to make those sort of judgement calls.

"Straw man" again. I don't believe in overflyign sovereign states with warplanes, attacking targets on the ground, and then going "Waugh, waugh, waugh, they're firing at me!" when the obvious occurs. As I pointed out, the U.S. was deliberately provocative (and this goes for Clinton too, FWIW, but it got worse under Dubya).

As to the...."Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq."

Unfortunately that is what they have been quoting - themselves, or journalists reports of what that journalist thought was said....

Oh, horsepuckey. We've quoted Dubya, Cheney, etc. Do you deny that they said what reporters said they said?

... Not so fussed about the links between Saddam and Iraq Arne, it would indeed be strange if there were no links between Saddam and Iraq - after all at the time in question he was actually running the place in a pretty hands-on fashion....

You got me, you little nit-picker, you. Now see if you can divine what I meant. Or is that too hard for you?

... The links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda were known of from intelligence reports pre-dating GWB's arrival in the White House. But the message that Ron Davies was trying to put across was that GWB and members of his administration were wandering around stating that Saddam/Iraq had a hand in the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001, when in actual fact the direct opposite was the case, I can again prove and give clear examples of that, Ron Davies and the rest of you cannot come up with a single quote to substantiate what you believe to be the case.

They did. You ignored them. Now put up or shut up: Give us a quoet where Dubya et. al. say that there was no involvement of Saddam in 9/11.

The claims of WoMD?? No big lie Arne & Co. Details relating to the unaccounted for stocks, munitions and precursor chemicals thought to exist in Iraq were brought to the attention of the Governments of the World by the United Nations - Not by George W. Bush - Not by Tony Blair. Did GWB and Tony Blair believe the UNSCOM Report - Of course they did, so did everybody else at the time - otherwise explain exactly how 1441 got passed. Don't take my word for it, the speeches made by all 15 Ambassadors sitting on the UNSC when 1441 was adopted are a matter of record - They are what they actually said at the time...

Most rational people thought there was uncertainty. Only Dubya said (after the fact, in fact!): "...did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely."

Arne, not what some anti-war, anti-Bush Blogger bashed out on the subject using 20 x 20 hindsight.

I pointed it out beforehand. And I was far from alone.

Again I can provide substantiation for what I am saying - Arne & Co will find it somewhat more difficult.

Ask the docs to titrate the Haldol up a notch.

Arne, at his cherry-picking best,..."Dubya couldn't stop lying afterwards, even, and invented this fantasy (or hallucination? -- scary...) about Saddam not letting the inspectors in (as I posted in an early article here)."

When was UNMOVIC formed Arne?

Irrelevant.

We know that UNSCOM were withdrawn on the advice of the US Government (Clinton) in December 1998 just before "Desert Fox" was launched. After "Desert Fox" did Saddam invite the UNSCOM Inspectors back into Iraq Arne? - No he did not Arne.

No. In part because the U.S. decided that it was a good idea to insert U.S. intelligence resources into the U.N. teams. Bad move, and I've criticised this previously.

But nonetheless irrelevant.

UNMOVIC was formed to replace UNSCOM on 17th December 1999, almost a year to the day that UNSCOM left Iraq. That was the UNSCOM that Saddam had run ragged, deceived, threatened and intimidated for the best part of seven years (Don't bother disputing that Arne, for the proof is overwhelmingly in favour of what I have just said).

Now UNMOVIC, duly constituted by the United Nations were allowed back into Iraq when Arne? 1999 - No; 2000 - No; 2001 - No; 2002 - Yes, right towards the end of the year. Now you can tell us why, you can tell us how that was achieved, can't you Arne.

Yep. UNSCR 1441. But glad to see that even you admit that Dubya's a lying sack'o'shite.

You can also tell us exactly who had kept the UNMOVIC Inspectors out of Iraq in 1999, 2000, 2001 and the first three quarters of 2002 - Couldn't have been Saddam Hussein could it Arne?

Irrelevant.

Now then Arne let's take a look at the President's Statement, made at a Press Conference during question time on the 14th July, 2003, and let us all remember that AT THAT TIME inspections by the US Survey Group were still ongoing:

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely."

Now Arne that was true, or are you going to tell us that there were no activities, or programmes, proscribed under the terms of applicable UN Security Council Resolutions taking place in Iraq. Please don't because they are easily verifiable.

Ummmm, there's that famous waffle: "Weapons of mas destruction program-related activities". Not my words, Teribus. That's getting pretty darn pedantic ... and pathetic. About the only program close to a violation was the al Samoud missile, and even that was arguable ... but as I pointed out, Saddam decided forgo any argument and to trash the missiles rather than risk giving Dubya some excuse for his wanton gun-slinging....

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

As stated above he had kept the UNSCOM Team out for a year, UNMOVIC out for the best part of three years.

But Dubya said he "wouldn't let them in". See:

Once allowed back in they were not given the full co-operation they were required to have from day 1, despite what Bobert might say to the contrary, the words of Hans Blix, Report to the UN Security Council 7th March 2003:

"Mr. President,

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat RELUCTANT CO-OPERATION, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.

This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is NOW asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is REQUIRED under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions that I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

OK. Let's see what Blix says:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE "IMMEDIATE" CO-OPERATION."

Whoopdedoo. But nonetheless "cooperation". Otherwise the "immediate" becomes superfluous. Words have meaning.

"And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

The reasonable request - "You and your regime have 48 hours to quit the country, or we, along with our allies, will remove you by force."

That wasn't in UNSCR 1441. It was WoMD, not regime change.

GHWB's Coalition with full UN backing consisted of 34 different countries back in 1990/1991.

GWB's Coalition consisted of 38 different countries who shared the view of the US that Saddam Hussein was better off being removed from the scene.

If you want to look a real co-operation, and actual contribution, honestly, you'd see what pretty much every rational person has been saying: Dubya did not take the time to build a true coalition as his father did ... and that has been a source of a significant part of our woes there (not to mention $300B and 2000 soldiers down the tubes).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 02:38 AM

Horsepucky, yourself TIA, the quotes you gave me related to links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda, not Saddam/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. The latter was what Ron Davies inferred and what I disputed.

Bobert's post of 05 Dec 05 - 09:02 PM, shows the man at his deluded best. I see the 100,000 innocent dead have re-entered the equation (Bobert 100,000 innocent Iraqis HAVE NOT BEEN KILLED). I see that Bobert once again asks about "Offing" Saddam and asks why this simple question of his has "never" been answered - it has of course but Bobert just doesn't like that answer.

"UN resolutions like they mean andanged thing" they mean so much to the likes of Ron Davies and Co that they even invent some at times just so they can show that the US is in violantion of them - the UN and the sanction to attack Iraq. CarolC quotes the sovereign integrity of the State of Iraq, well unfortunately for CarolC the US and it's coalition partners have done nothing to alter the sovereign integrity of Iraq, they have effected Regime Change, that is all.

Now TO WIT: George Bush never actually linked the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001 with Saddam.... FACT... "In one speech after another in the mad-dash-to-war referance of 9/11 were sprinkled in... Waht was that all about, T??? Just seasoning???" No Bobert POSSIBLE FUTURE THREAT.

"Saddam has been removed. Time to leave, right???" As soon as the elected Iraqi Government tells us to leave.

So US presence is for no other reasons.." 'cept oil and stategic military reasons..." Of course Bobert, that is why no major US or British Oil Company has been awarded any of the Field Development Contracts, and no evidence has been offered with regard to US intentions of remaining in Iraq for any longer than the Iraqi Government wants the MNF there, the presence of that force also being subject to a UN Mandate - it runs out end of 2006 and is to be reviewed in June 2006.

Oh this is very much about Clinton, and the double standards of the anti-Bush faction when it comes to viewing the situation.

Oddly enough Bobert the percentage numbers of troops in Iraq spread between the 38 countries of the 2003 coalition and those of the 34 countries in 1991 coalition are about the same, in both cases the US provided the vast bulk of them.

Ron Davies - 05 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM

Regarding the quote and references to GWB and members of his administration clearly acknowledging that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. You have been given a quote from the Vice-President dated 8th September 2002, which somehow is a date that you chose to read as 8th September 2003, for some strange reason.

You and your fellow travellers have not come up with one single quote where GWB, or members of his administration have stated that Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with the 911 attacks - Not one.

I can clearly see that you believe that they did "carry out a campaign to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 during the above period" - but that is all it is, it is your belief, and as with CarolC, just because it is your belief does not make it fact. All joint references to Iraq and Al-Qaeda, post 911, apart from those where the current administration clearly state that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, clearly refer to a possible future threat.

CarolC - 05 Dec 05 - 10:36 PM

"Teribus my good fellow, just as you asked, I gave you direct quotes from GWB himself with dates and links. Anyone can simply browse up the thread for proof of this."

The only thing that is invisible CarolC are the "direct quotes", the "dates", the "links" - in fact everything you mention above.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 03:24 AM

terribus - "no evidence has been offered with regard to US intentions of remaining in Iraq"

I gave you evidence of intent when I linked you to articles stating that U.S. and British contracts are being pushed by the U.S. govt. and Chalabi. Control of the economy is just another way to dominate the people of Iraq.

Everybody has given evidence except you.

You are a blowhard.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 04:09 AM

Alas, Arne, my little viking - you have got it exactly 180 degrees out:

"You are demanding that Dubya use precise and very specific words (your "Simon Says" ploy) to assert that Dubya claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that wasn't the issue, was it? It was whether Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots."

I have absolutely no doubt that links did exist between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back years prior to 911. What I said, and what Ron Davies took exception to and contradicted me on, was that very early after the attacks of 911 the Bush Administration came out with very clear statements that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. Did they investigate whether he did or not, did they ask people to look into it - I am bloody certain that they did - resulting in the statements made regarding Iraq's non-involvement.

Teribus...."Now so far, between a few of us, the actual words spoken by GWB and members of his administration, within context have been provided."

I can clearly establish that the quotes and references I provide are from transcripts of speeches, press conferences and official records. Now where do yours come from Arne:

Remember my comment..."you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on."

Arne's own words...."no, I rely oon what reputable media (and even disreputable media, such as "www.whitgehouse.gov") report on what the maladministration said."

Therin lies the difference Arne - I read and listen to what the person says, you, on the other hand, read and listen to what somebody else has reported.

Maybe like Ron, you could furnish us with what you regard as being reputable media (Al-Jazeera for example, although their coverage on the 180,000 deaths, at the hands of the Muslim Government troops and Muslim Janjaweed Militia in Darfur was a trifle sketchy - understandable oversight eh Arne?)

OK Arne maybe we are getting somewhere after all - You now apparently accept that the idea of regime change in Iraq came not from George W Bush but from the previous administration under Bill Clinton.

Teribus..."But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations."

Arne....."News flash: Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!!!!"

Arne, would you like to point out exactly where in that sentence of mine quoted above where I have said, inferred, alluded to Iraq attacking the US. And also tell us exactly how the following paragraph of that post of mine started - "Afghanistan...." correct?

You see Arne that's your problem, supplied by ideas from others you do not read, you just react along your pre-programmed misconceptions.

By the way Arne the head of state of any country is free to act in the defence of his/her country, or its national interest if they believe them to be threatened - it does not require approval from the United Nations - That is a fact of life, that is the reality, learn to live with it.

Teribus..."Afghanistan had the general concensus of world opinion behind it, maybe not the anti-war, anti-Bush, peace-at-any-price brigade, but enough of the world all the same."

Arne...."News flash for your: Afghanistan is not located in Iraq. Moving the goal posts a couple thousand Km, eh?"

Another example, where have I stated that Afghanistan is in Iraq Arne? You seem to be the one not only setting but moving goal posts, due to your complete and utter inability to read something and understand it - Oh unless somebody tells you what to think first.

Another little exchange that proves my point perfectly:

Arne...."Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq."

Teribus..."Unfortunately that is what they have been quoting - themselves, or journalists reports of what that journalist thought was said...."

Arne..."Oh, horsepuckey. We've quoted Dubya, Cheney, etc. Do you deny THAT THEY SAID WHAT REPORTERS SAID THEY SAID?"

As stated previously, I tend to read what the person says, not what the reporter says he says - because in my experience Arne newspaper reporters and journalists lie, nine times out of ten their story is written before they even leave their desks to go and do the interview.

Reference the required quote:

Dick Cheney interview "Meet the Press" 8th September 2002. Already posted.

Now you give us one direct quote (Note Arne direct quote - not what some reporter or journalist thinks was being said) where GWB or any member of his administration stated that there was a link between Saddam/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001.

What you thought in the period 18th December 1998 to 20th March 2003, with regard to WMD, is immaterial Arne. Thankfully, it was never going to be your call to make, fortunately, for the country in which you live, you Arne Langsetmo, were not the person responsible for safeguarding the security and national interests of the United States of America.

UNMOVIC is irrelevant Arne? - How so

Do you deny that between 18th December 1998 and December 2002 the person and regime keeping UNSCOM and latterly UNMOVIC out of Iraq was Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Government of Iraq?

Do you deny that the only reason UNMOVIC were eventually invited back into Iraq (Oh yes Arne they had to be INVITED BACK IN) was because the President of the United States of America parked a quarter of a million members of the armed forces of the US on his doorstep, with the clear message comply, co-operate or you will be removed irrespective.

With regard to the words spoken by Dr. Hans Blix, Arne flounders around alot here, mainly because there's nobody telling him what to think, but he does come up with this absolute GEM:

Arne....."Words have meaning."

Yes they do Arne, my little american viking, EVEN THE ONES CONTAINED IN UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS, especially if you happen to be on the receiving end of them. Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 required the immediate, unconditional and active co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities from day one, not the stirrings of it 3-4 months down the track, no attempts on the Iraqi side to impose, or attach conditions. Yes Arne, words do have meanings, and people are best advised to heed them, but that is not selective, it applies goes right across the board.

Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 04:29 AM

dianavan - 06 Dec 05 - 03:24 AM


Are you telling us Dianavan that Chalabi and the US Government are pushing to have US and UK troops remain in Iraq under contract? Because when I made the statement that, "no evidence has been offered with regard to US intentions of remaining in Iraq" I was refuting Boberts comments about US military presence in Iraq, if you are going to quote me Dianavan quote in context:

"Saddam has been removed. Time to leave, right???" As soon as the elected Iraqi Government tells us to leave.

So US presence is for no other reasons.." 'cept oil and stategic military reasons..." Of course Bobert, that is why no major US or British Oil Company has been awarded any of the Field Development Contracts, and no evidence has been offered with regard to US intentions of remaining in Iraq for any longer than the Iraqi Government wants the MNF there, the presence of that force also being subject to a UN Mandate - it runs out end of 2006 and is to be reviewed in June 2006."

Has that cleared it up for you??? Or does it have to be further explained??

As to the articles you regard as evidence of intent. How many contracts have been awarded Dianavan? How many major US and UK oil Companies are now controlling Iraq's economy because of deals that Chalabi and the US government have pushed through?

NONE Correct Dianavan?

And old Chalabi had better get a move on, after the 15th of this month he is no longer in office - Is he Dianavan? He could of course be re-elected, probably will but will he be deputy or oil minister that as yet remains to be seen.

You Dianavan are an hysterical alarmist, whose powers of analyses and prediction are thankfully miles off target.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 09:59 AM

Teribus says:

"Horsepucky, yourself TIA, the quotes you gave me related to links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda, not Saddam/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. The latter was what Ron Davies inferred and what I disputed."

Already posted this one up thread. Didja miss it somehow?

GWB May 1, 2003, speech aboard the Lincoln (under the banner – remember?):

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001. With that attack, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got".

And CarolC posted this one:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained"

Musta missed that too.

Ron Davies has this one nailed - I'm afraid that for you it just seems too late to back down from an untenable position.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:06 AM

Oops, that was moi, sans biscuit.

And with that, despite the fun, I declare myself done with running around in little circles. On to other threads!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:16 AM

Whoo! Impressive stuff. I am now wavering between committing myself totally to Arne Langsetmo (with that devastating last post of his)...or to the titanic Teribus...who continues to astound with his command of massive verbiage, reaction, and counter-reaction.

It took me several hours to fully digest and analyze the many points made by just those 2 gentlemen in their last few posts. Heavy stuff, man.

I feel that only a few more weeks of this will be necessary for me to arrive at a firm conclusion as to who is right here...and who is irredeemably damned or else totally fecking stupid. Then I can get on with my life.

Hopefully my savings will stretch to cover the interim. I dare not abandon the computer in fear of missing the next installment.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:38 AM

GUEST 06 Dec 05 - 09:59 AM aka TIA

TIA's example No.1 :
GWB May 1, 2003, speech aboard the Lincoln (under the banner – remember?):

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001. With that attack, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got".

Again TIA that would not have influenced anyone into thinking that there was a link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 in the run up to 20th March 2003, would it?? Plus the possibly rather minor point that what the President is talking about here is completely in line with exactly how he defined the scope of the war against terror in his 2002 State of the Union Address. The same applies to the example given by CarolC (lifted from the President's 2003 State of the Union Address) only this time I will quote the full paragraph and will not just cherry-pick as CarolC did:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. IMAGINE those 19 hijackers WITH OTHER WEAPONS AND OTHER PLANS -- THIS TIME armed by Saddam Hussein. It WOULD TAKE one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country TO BRING A DAY OF HORROR like none we have ever known. WE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DAY NEVER COMES."

Now TIA that looks pretty clear that he is talking of a possible future threat that needs to be addressed, he is not talking about the past, he is not talking about Saddam Hussein being behind, or having anything to do with the 911 attacks. It also follows completely in step with what he had said the year before.

Now let's just remind ourselves of what George W. Bush DID SAY during the 2002 State of the Union Address, and just for Ron Davies's sake, Yes Ron, I DO MEAN the 2002 Address:


EXTRACTED FROM THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS - 2002
"Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. FIRST, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, SECOND, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.

While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf.   

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening AMERICA OR OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime ARMING with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran AGGRESSIVELY PURSUES THESE WEAPONS AND EXPORTS TERROR, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its HOSTILITY toward America and to SUPPORT TERROR. The Iraqi regime has PLOTTED TO DEVELOP anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, ARMING to threaten the peace of the world. BY SEEKING weapons of mass destruction, these regimes POSE A GRAVE AND GROWING DANGER. They COULD PROVIDE these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: AMERICA WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE OUR NATION'S SECURITY.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

Again, a future threat identified and evaluated as existing in to two forms - international terrorist groups AND possible support such groups might receive from certain rogue states and regimes. The language is certainly clear enough.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 01:48 PM

Well, well, well, T-Digger.

Yer twistin' and squirmin' reminds me of the saying, "When yer in a hole, quit diggin', yet you continue to dig...

Okay boys and girls, lets vote...

How many of you felt that the Bush & Co. did not make repeated attempts to link Saddam and Al Qeada during the sellin' of the Iraq war... Come on, don't be bashfull... Just raise yer hand... Okay, T, we have tabulated yer vote and, BTW, rasing both hands still counts as only one vote...

Like I said, quit digging pal... Every shovel full represents just one notch down on the credibility chart... I you were a stock there'd be investors jumpin' outta windows about now...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 02:03 PM

"If we're successful in Iraq, then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11,"

Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press", September 14, 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: patmc
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 06:20 PM

Can I ask y'all a question.
Which of you folks on here have ever been to Iraq- either before 1991, during, pre-latest clusterfuck or um... "since the end of hostilities"
Just curious.
Pat

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 07:03 PM

Never been there...sounds like maybe you have patmc?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 08:39 PM

Damn! That last Teribus post was right up to snuff. I read it out loud to my roommate. He says he'll thump me if I do that again. He's a complete Philistine when it comes to politics.

"Who the hell are these people you're quoting anyway?" he snarled at me, as he prepared to leave (going to the pub, I think).

"They're a bunch of brilliant private political analysts on an Internet forum called Mudcat," says I.

"They're a bunch of know-it-all idiots," says he. "Puffed up with their own sense of grandeur. I'd thump 'em all if I had the chance. Specially that Teribus blathermouth. God! I don't know how you stand it. I'm gone." With that, he stalked out the door.

He's a fool. He'll never understand the importance of sorting out just where evil lies in the world so that one can know exactly who to hate and who not to.

More please. I am hungry for more.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 08:46 PM

Yes TIA quite in line with what was said way back in 2002. Now come on please give us a quote a quote whereby the Presidedent of the United States of America, or any member of his Administration indicated that Saddam Hussein/ Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of 11th September 2001.

Give you a hint TIA you cannot do it. Now just sit down and contemplate that one single fact. You have tried your damndest at it just has not happened, I have not swallowed your line of complete and utter bullshit. Now come on if you actually believe what you say - PROVE IT.

YOU CAN'T an I did say can't

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM

Oh, dear. That last one was a signal disappointment. I am going to have to knock Teribus down a point or two in the standings now. I expected better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 09:04 PM

GUEST,Mirsy - 06 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM

Oh Dear!!! Too Bad!!! Never Mind

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:23 PM

Like I've pointed out to T-Digger....

When in a hole, quit diggin' but he don't listen...

The starnge thing here is that we were all 'round in the mad-dash-to-war... T_Amnesia must have forgotten that as he tries and tries to rewrite the way it went down...

Ahhhh, in the sellin' of the invasion of Iraq the world was bamblasted with referencwes to 9/11... I mean, like over the top bamblased, if bamblasted is even a word??? Bush and Cheney couldn't makie their case for war in Iraq without bringing up 9/11...

Ahhhh, I don't have the State of the Union text before me that the '16 words" were uttered but it would be interesting to how amy times Bush used the exact term "9/11" of the exact term "terrorist/s" in that speech....

Go back the Cincinitta speeech of Oct (11th???) (10th???) before the invasion and count up the "9/11" or "terrorist" references that were made by Bush...;

Only a very dillusional person would be so arrogant into thinking that he could convince a couple humdred folks on a website where the average age is 50 plus into thinking that they weren't alive in the mad-dash-to-war and therefore must not remember the way it went down...

(But Bobert... Maybe it isn't arrogance... Maybe T-Altzhiemers actually has forgotten that we were around 3 years ago)

Ahhhh, it has just occured to me that maybe T-Forgetfull might have gone thru some organic changes and if that is the case, I am deeply saddened...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:39 PM

I didn't provide that quote about what people believed about Saddam prior to 9/11. Ron Davies provided that one in this post...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies - PM
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM

If you look at the post in which I quoted Ron's post, you will see that I italicized the quote and put it in quotation marks. And then I responded to it with my response.

In response to the full paragraph provided by Teribus, I would say that full paragraph is an excellent example of the kind of tactics the Bush administration used relentlessly to condition people to connect the two unrelated things... 9/11, and Saddam Hussein, in the minds of the US electorate. Multiply that quote by many hundreds, and you get a perfect understanding of why such a large percentage of people in the US believed that Saddam was either responsible for, or contributed to what happened on 9/11.

Teribus styles himself as someone who lives in the UK. I think either he is lying about living in the UK, or he has no way of really knowing how the people in the US experienced this sort of propaganda from the US government during the lead-up to the invasion, because he wasn't here, and he wasn't being subjected to it himself.


Perhaps Teribus would like to prove to us that the government of the Soviet Union, for instance, never tried to mislead the people of the Soviet Union about anything because we can't produce any documents from any Soviet premiers admitting that they were doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:48 PM

teribus says, "As to the articles you regard as evidence of intent. How many contracts have been awarded Dianavan? How many major US and UK oil Companies are now controlling Iraq's economy because of deals that Chalabi and the US government have pushed through?"

I am talking about the INTENT of major U.S. and U.K. oil companies but you want evidence that they are NOW controlling Iraq's economy.

Don't you think its a little suspect that the man who gave false information about Iraq to the U.S. is now the man in power? He is likely to be in power after Dec. 15th too. How coincidental!

Hassan Awad (Iraq trade unionist) doesn't seem to trust the U.S. either.

"The US has decreed that only its companies can bid for oil contracts, sidelining the companies of other countries, whether from Europe or elsewhere.

Only two months after their troops crossed the border, US companies —Kellogg Brown & Root and Halliburton — arrived to take control over our industry. These US companies are the real beneficiaries of the invasion."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:52 PM

The closest the whining anti-american anti-war mongers can come to a quote by Bush saying that Saddam and 9/11 were connected is that he mentioned both very close together in a specch.

Pathetic. Go emigrate to Mexico. Make Bobert the cut and paste Nazi proud.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:57 PM

Now there's a possibility???

Hmmmmmm? Seein' as T-NotHere might not have been here then that gives him an excuse fir misrepresenting what porpaganda we were blasted with????

Okay, that might explain it... Fir ther life of me I can't figgure out why else he don't get it...

I even brought up the possibilites that maybe T-Forgetfull might have slipped doen the totum pole to T-Altzhiemers and now I feel bad about saying them things, even if it turns out that his latest shananagins are a result of mental slipage...

Prolly what Carol said... He just wasn't "here" to experience it first hand....

In that case, lucky T-Weren'tHere and unlucky fir those of us who were... We vividlt remember Bush not being able to so much as sneeze without it comin' out Ha-9/11-Chu...

God Bless you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:15 PM

Yo duck,

Quack, quack...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:34 PM

How original Bobert you are a quack.

All you do is post horseshit and when someone posts the truth you whine that it is cut and paste.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:52 PM

Yeah, Quackster....

How bout you steppin' out from under them feathers an' say that...

Yeah, real comfy firing away from GUEST-dom... Like the snipers in Virgina and the DC area... Like real brave!!!

You, as well as yer other right winged GUEST, ain't nuthin but a bunch of cowards... Prolly all a bunch or 13 year old girls....

Tell ya what, Quack, I'll take the bunch of you girly-boys GUESTS in the parking lot of the Liberty gas station at New Market on I-81 and put a serious butt whup on all you cowards...

Hey, maybe you cowards could pull yer resorces and drive together to save money fir the medical treatment yer gonna need after this ol' hillbilly is done with ya...

Yeah, not only can I kicj yer butt's on issues but sho nuff can at the Liberty station....

Bunch of GUEST losers, as far as I can see....

Yeah, why don't you all just gop to D.C. and camp out in front othe White House and have you all a big ol' circle jerk... Make you all feel all warm and fuzzy... Save you a butt whup... But if you want the butt whup, bring yer 13-year-old-girl selves right on to the Liberty station.... I'll meet you there... I-81 and New Market, you crybaby...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:20 AM

dianavan - 06 Dec 05 - 10:48 PM

Oh Dianavan so you are only talking about intent, something that some people would like to see happen in the future, not something that has already happened.

It appears that you can state such things and make inference/refer to supposed deals that have been pushed through, whereas when a certain other person describes a set of circumstances that may lead to something in the future he is lying and guilty of deliberate misrepresentation. How very convenient for those wishing to present that as an arguement.

Don't you think its a little suspect that the man who gave false information about Iraq to the U.S. is now the man in power? He is likely to be in power after Dec. 15th too. How coincidental!


And Dianavan:
"Hassan Awad (Iraq trade unionist) doesn't seem to trust the U.S. either.

"The US has decreed that only its companies can bid for oil contracts, sidelining the companies of other countries, whether from Europe or elsewhere.

Only two months after their troops crossed the border, US companies —Kellogg Brown & Root and Halliburton — arrived to take control over our industry. These US companies are the real beneficiaries of the invasion."

What was being referred to here was essential repair work in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. The CPA days, which have long gone, the US now has absolutely no control over who the current Interim Iraqi Government, or the incoming duly elected Government of Iraq, award contracts to. In the Thread "What is really happening in Iraq" we have been through who has been awarded work and so far it has not gone to one major US or UK Company, and on many Halliburton has not even been invited to tender.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 07:44 AM

Teribus blabbers on:

Alas, Arne, my little viking - you have got it exactly 180 degrees out:

Oh, yes, Teribus, my little pin-head, I wuv U2! Happy now?

[Arne:]"You are demanding that Dubya use precise and very specific words (your "Simon Says" ploy) to assert that Dubya claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that wasn't the issue, was it? It was whether Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots."


I have absolutely no doubt that links did exist between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back years prior to 911. What I said, and what Ron Davies took exception to and contradicted me on, was that very early after the attacks of 911 the Bush Administration came out with very clear statements that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. Did they investigate whether he did or not, did they ask people to look into it - I am bloody certain that they did - resulting in the statements made regarding Iraq's non-involvement.

Just a FYI, so we have some context here for Teribus's "straw man" stategery, here's what Ron Davies did say, back a year ago:

From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 05:47 PM

So far Teribus has stubbornly-- (indeed, beyond "stubbornly",-- as I noted earlier) refused to accept the fact that the Bush "administration" engaged in a propaganda campaign between mid 2002 and the invasion (March 2003) to convince the US public of a link between al Queda and 11 September 2001 on one hand and Saddam on the other.

Here's Teribus's "straw man" (and what he demands as an explicitly stated position of the maladministration): A statement asserting positively that "...there was a link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 in the run up to 20th March 2003." (the words of Teribus).

Note the use of the conjunction "and" by Ron. And the use of the words "propaganda campaign". Now Teribus is a real stickler for accuracy, and about how words have meaning. But propaganda campaigns are in fact sometimes more successful in what they don't say than for what they do explicitly say. Detailed previously have been many examples of attempts by the maladministration to link Saddam and al Qaeda (that's hard to deny, but Teribus will probably do it). In fact, mentioned above have been details on this effort as a propaganda campaign (not to mention the famous Powerpoint presentation, as well as Andrew Card's unintentionally revealing comment about "introduc[ing] new products in August"). Teribus ignores this. And since al Qaeda and the Sept. 11th attacks are quite obviously linked, once you link al Qaeda to Saddam, you have in fact linked Saddam to Sept. 11th of necessity, even if you didn't say that explicitly!

But Teribus does the ol' "Simon Says" game, and demands evidence that Dubya and his handlers tipped their hand by explicitly stating their strategy and desired results (this maladministration be honest and open in their strategery? LOL)....

Here's the way Teribus puts it:

CarolC - 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM

"Regardless of whether or not they ever clearly stated a link between Saddam and 9/11, it certainly was (and to a large extent, continues to be) their intention for the US public to make that connection in their minds, and they have done everything they could to foster that link in the minds of the general public (perhaps just short of coming right out and saying it)."

This apparently is a FACT - CarolC please substantiate it.

Anything less than a direct quote/transcript from the office of the President of the United States of America to the effect that what you have stated above is true will not be accepted - because you see just because CarolC says so doesn't make it true.

Not cricket. Just Teribus hefting that goal post back another 10 yards. Or playing Calvin-Ball.

OTOH, Teribus has been asked for a quote that shows that Dubya and the maladministration tried to dissuade people from making such a link. So here's what he proffers:

Example 1 - One Quote as requested - Dick Cheney:
From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:

Interview excerpt quoted from - Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

A). It refers to whether Saddam was linked to the attacks, not to al Qaeda more generally.

B). It asks for "evidence". Not whether there was an al Qaeda/Saddam link (a position that Cheney did in fact assert; in fact, Cheney publicly pushed the Mohammed Atta [where have I heard that name before .... hmmm, have to think about it...] supposed Prague meeting with Iraq agents, since discounted). So Cheney here is denying that there is evidence, but not denying the link.

C). It had to be pulled out of Cheney; it wasn't volunteered. And hardly a detailed exposition of Cheney's views (except in Teribus's tortured mind).

So Teribus's "clear statement" from the maladministration that discounted the Iraq/9-11 tie (or, more to the point, the al Qaeda/Iraq tie) is not any such thing. Instead we have the plethora of quotes that pushed the contrary view(s).

So Teribus continues:

I have absolutely no doubt that links did exist between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back years prior to 911.

Teribus, clue for you: No one cares what you believe.

What I said, and what Ron Davies took exception to and contradicted me on, was that very early after the attacks of 911 the Bush Administration came out with very clear statements that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks.

Hmmmmm. "Statements". Changed my mind, Teribus. How about more than one quote from the maladministration trying to set things straight.

Did they investigate whether he did or not, did they ask people to look into it - I am bloody certain that they did - resulting in the statements made regarding Iraq's non-involvement.

OK. Out wi' 'em....   Let's hear these quotes, Teribus. Now, since "words have meaning" and we're getting literal, we need at least two!!!

But I'd point out that Cheney continued to push the Iraq/al Qaeda connection for quite a while, even after the war, including the supposed Prague meeting with its quite obvious insinuation.

More later (sorry, Mirsy, you'll have to wait ... but you seem to enjoy that).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 09:04 AM

Geoduck, I think you are the one who is anti-American, if you approve of having this country and everything it stands for destroyed by the bunch of radical cowboys (and cowgirls) who are now running it. All you have to do is look at the numbers of people who believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 for your proof of the fact that the country was mislead. And don't invite me to leave the country. If you approve of what the people now in power here are doing to this country, you are the one who should leave (if you're even here).

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 10:42 AM

Teribus---

Well,well, you've set a trap fro yourself and obligingly fallen right in it. Well done.


Re: 8 Sept 2002

Teribus: 6 Dec 2005 2:38 AM (do you ever get any sleep?)--"You have been given a quote from the Vice President dated 8th September 2002"

Fine--let's look at that quote--given to us by Teribus on 3 Dec 2005 7:18 AM

Hi Ron

Example 1--One Quote as requested--Dick Cheney. From the Sept 8 Meet the Press.

Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch"

Russert on the Sept 16, 2001-----(NB Sept 16, 2001--2001-do you get it?)

"Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"

Cheney: No."

Now I know this will require careful reading on your part, Teribus--something you're not famous for--I don't want to strain your poor brain--but exactly what have you quoted from 2002 that Cheney said?

I'll clue you--precisely nothing, nada, zilch.

YOUR CHENEY QUOTE IS FROM 2001, NOT 2002.

Therefore it does not fit the time period of the propaganda campaign--mid 2002 to March 2003. That is when Bush and co were beating the drums to attack Iraq.

In fact, I have already pointed this out in my 3 Dec 2005 8:33 AM posting, which you choose to ignore.

Russert and Cheney watched a CLIP from 2001. You quote nothing Cheney said from 2002. Is it getting through to you?

You have therefore still not produced one quote from the mid-2002 to March 2003 period when the propaganda campaign was going on to link Saddam to al Queda and September 11, 2001.

However, I did a bit of digging myself. I said a few days ago that it was likely Cheney's stance would have shifted from 2001 to 2002--and I was right.

I found the transcript of the 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press. For some inexplicable reason you left out everything that was said AFTER WATCHING THE CLIP FROM 2001.

In fact, this is what was said directly afterward--maybe somebody could set up a "blue clicky".

You're more than welcome to ignore it again. I will just rub your face in it til you see it.

Now, did Cheney reiterate a clear statement that there was no evidence linking Saddam and 11 Sept 2001?


Here's the transcript:

Mr. Russert: "Has anything happened to change your mind? (since 2001)

Vice President Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that.

On the other hand, since we did that interview new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq on the one hand and the al-Queda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen, in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center..."

That's what he said in 2002--not what you allege.   He raised all sorts of possible connections between Iraq and Sept 11.

You are dead wrong again, I'm sorry to say.

Feel free to check the transcript of the 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press.

Upshot is: you still have no quote from the period mid 2002 to March 2003 in which Bush or one of his minions clearly disassociates Saddam and 11 Sept 2001---and we have plenty that indicate they did try to associate the two---INCLUDING your 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press.

Perhaps you also don't undertstand how propaganda works.

You need to read some history. I can recommend a few starter books for you.

Propaganda does not always need a blatant statement. Just "Before September 11, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained" is more than enough for a lot of Americans both jittery and angry enough to strike back--at anybody.

Even after the US attack on the Taliban--which I supported-- the Toby Keith-brand desire for vengeance was not slaked. Nor was the the fear of another 11 Sept.

Bush and co played on that fear like true Goebbels star pupils.


Teribus--much as it pains me to say it, you've blown it yet again.

The propaganda campaign linking Saddam with 11 Sept 2001 is a fact, not a theory.

You have no counter-evidence.

The more you deny it, the harder it will be on your ego to finally admit it.


As I said earlier, you should have picked out a more sea-worthy vessel before lashing yourself to the mast.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:00 AM

You, as well as yer other right winged GUEST, ain't nuthin but a bunch of cowards... Prolly all a bunch or 13 year old girls....

Bobert, I don't think you should be slandering 13 year old girls like that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:27 AM

Ron, Arne, et al

The President having said this on the 29th January 2002:

"Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.

While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf.

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch."

Is perfectly entitled to mention any regime or country sponsoring terrorist causes and any terrorist organisation when referring to the United States of America's declared war on terror, he has defined the scope of it in the first paragraph quoted - So why does he need a "propaganda campaign" Ron???

He doesn't have to convince the people of the USA, he has to convince the Senate and the House of Representatives. He doesn't really need to work all that hard to do that because it was the joint house Security Committee and the US intelligence and security services that identified the countries comprising the "axis of evil" - so no "propaganda campaign" required to convince them - they told him that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq posed a threat.

Ron seems rather fixed on the period mid 2002 to March 2003 - who did the President of the United States of America have to convince to the extent that a "propaganda campaign" had to be waged:

- Not the population of the US, as they have no bearing on the issue
- Not the Senate or House of Representatives as they are already on board.
- UN Member States on the UNSC? Hardly they will go where directed by their own Governments
- UN Member States in General? Same and besides its a UNSC matter the general membership have no bearing on the issue.

There was no propaganda campaign because there was absolutely no need for one - it would fulfil no purpose whatsoever - what you did have was a marked degree of spin from the media and a great deal of biased and inaccurate reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:12 PM

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

What "terror" has the regime in North Korea sponsored? And if it hasn't sponsored any, why was it mentioned in that particular paragraph all by itself, instead of another regime that really has sponsored "terror"?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:31 PM

Moro Islamic Liberation Front had purchased weapons from North Korea with funds provided by Middle East sources.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM

So we're going to define governments that "sponsor terror" according to who buys weapons from those countries? Ok. I can live with that definition. Of course, I don't think there are very many countries that don't fit that criteria.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 10:47 PM

LOL, Teribus. You, just like your icon Dubya, seem to be of the curious opinion that by simply repeating speeches by Dubya over and over again, you'll get the magic results that you didn't achieve the first time around. Don't know where you got this foolish notion, but in fact, the opposite seems to pertain -- people actually start to get bored and irritated after the second or third repetition, and consider you even more a clueless and rather unoriginal berk for having repeated yourself....

So why does he need a "propaganda campaign" Ron???

Dunno. Why don't you ask him? Seems he's the one that thought it necessary....

He doesn't have to convince the people of the USA, he has to convince the Senate and the House of Representatives. He doesn't really need to work all that hard to do that because it was the joint house Security Committee and the US intelligence and security services that identified the countries comprising the "axis of evil" - so no "propaganda campaign" required to convince them - they told him that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq posed a threat.

Pack'o'lies, there, Teribus.

There was no propaganda campaign because there was absolutely no need for one - it would fulfil no purpose whatsoever - what you did have was a marked degree of spin from the media and a great deal of biased and inaccurate reporting.

You conclude (at least in your "logic" here) that Dubya couldn't have engaged in a Rovian propaganda campaign (and therefore that such didn't exist), because such a campaign would have been quite stoopid given the facts as you assume them and set them forth above. However, that assumes facts not in evidence: Namely, that the Dubya maladministration is indeed rational and level-headed and never makes any bone-headed and illogical blunders. But that's clearly not the case. May I submit the following line into the record: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." That's the failure of your supposed logic here, Teribus. You deny an obvious fact by saying that no one could have been stoopid enough to have caused that fact to transpire. You misunderestimate Dubya, I fear. You'd be better served by showing directly that the fact was not indeed the case, rather than indirectly attacking its existence based on someone's supposed motivations and abilities.

But you further make the mistake of misstating the surrounding facts. The claims you make for the need for a propaganda campaign are mistaken as well. Good ol' "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" Dubya was hardly the reluctant warriour being swept up in a tide of anti-Saddam public opinion. Mr. Pump Your Fist In The Air And Yell "Feels Good" On Starting A War hardly bowed to a groundswell of Congressional pro-war sentiment in invading Iraq. The actual facts are that support for the misguided and sanguinary Iraq invasion had to be carefully nurtured by misinformation, distortions, fear-mongering, and outright lies, to swing the public and Congress behind it (but this campaign failed miserably in getting sentiment abroad to swing round to Dubya's side, thus the refusal of the U.N. to sanction the invasions and the massive worldwide protests and opposition to Dubya's belligerence (might have had something to do with their not being under a puppy-dog mainstream media as most of the folks in the U.S. were, and thus better able to see the Dubya propaganda for what it was).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:00 PM

George Bush or Dick Cheny have never said the Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

All I see are quotes such as "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that."

This is proof that they specifically avoided saying that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

This is the counter-evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:07 PM

The inimitable Tom Tomorrow weighs in. . . .

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:19 PM

Geoduck:

George Bush or Dick Cheny have never said the Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

All I see are quotes such as "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that."

You're not looking too hard. You missed the quote where Cheney said we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague, amongst others.

This is proof that they specifically avoided saying that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

This is the counter-evidence.

No. Counter-evidence would be them saying: "Despite all the silly rumours, fabrications, and innuendo being floated by the Democrats about how Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11, we have determined that there is no such link." But sadly for you, this would have been difficult for the maladministration to say, seeing as Laurie Mylroie (search thread above for more on this piece of work) was not a Democrat, but rather a favourite and an intimate of the PNAC folks in the maladministration itself, who were also pushing her line'o'bullshite....

But why so defensive about the maladministration's pre-war efforts (or your alleged lack of effort on their part)? Do you acknowledge that the war itself was (and continues) to be a bloody disaster based on false intelligence? That would be progress of a sort.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:22 PM

Arne,

If I repeat the sections of the speeches that I have referenced it is in the hope that you will read then, as opposed to relying on what someone else tells you was said. But no matter, if you remain unconvinced, I will continue to base my view on what was actually said than what I am told second-hand.

So the Bipartisan House Security Committee and the intelligence and security agencies of the USA did not Identify the following Countries as posing a possible threat to the US through possible future provision of support (technical, financial, or material) to international terrorist groups: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba. It's all a Pack of Lies is it Arne? Don't think so, FBI definitely thought so on 11th February 2003.

There was no propaganda campaign because there was absolutely no need for one Arne and your suppositions and analysis based on second hand information are totally unconvincing.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:50 PM

AL:

The qoute "we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague" does not appear in this thread.

What does appear is "we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official"

I Googled for it and the results were:
Your search - "we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague" - did not match any documents.

Evidently you made it up and now you accuse me of not being able to see it.

Do you make up quotes by others and try to pass them off as fact often? If so you are suffering from dilusions. Better get a check up from the neck up.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 08:47 PM

Guest (AKA Geoduck):

The qoute "we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague" does not appear in this thread.

Yeah. You notice the lack of quotation marks around those words in my previous post? That means it's not a verbatim quote. But it is what Cheney stated on more than one occasion, including in the following quote that you recite:

What does appear is "we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official"

Yepsah. Cheney's saying that he thinks that Atta met with the Iraqis in Prague. I don't think he was insinuating that they liked the dark coffee there either. He repeated this assertion, and even long after the war began kept saying, well, we don't know if he did but we don't know if he didn't. Despite the fact that both the FBI and CIA had determined pretty conclusively that Atta couldn't have been in Prague, and that the sources for the Prague story might not have been all that reliable.

I Googled for it and the results were:
Your search - "we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague" - did not match any documents.

Your Googling skills need some work. Try "Atta Iraq Cheny Prague".

There you'll find the likes of this:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that--it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

So that's two easily found instances where Cheney's said what I said he said.

Evidently you made it up and now you accuse me of not being able to see it.

Evidently you don't know what quotation marks are for. But what I was saying was quite correct. You are insisting that he didn't use the precise language that I used ... but that's irrelevant, as I never made any such claim either, but used this language of my own to characterise Cheney's multiple assertions on this subject. You may disagree with my characterisation of his assertions (and if you do, out with it), but don't go calling me a quote fabricator.

Do you make up quotes by others and try to pass them off as fact often?

Nope. Nor did I do so here. Despite your misunderstanding to the contrary.

If so you are suffering from dilusions. Better get a check up from the neck up.

I'd suggest that it is you that are seeing things that aren't there ... such as quotation marks. And not seeing what's in pretty plain sight for a nominally capable person. Do pay attention.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:39 PM

Teribus:

If I repeat the sections of the speeches that I have referenced it is in the hope that you will read then, as opposed to relying on what someone else tells you was said....

I've read 'em. And heard 'em. Big stinkin' piles'o'crap. What I don't know is why you think I should read 'em agin. What am I missing there that's relevant to this discussion? Obviously rather subtle, seeing as you see the need to quote the whole damn thing to try and make your "point" agin.

... But no matter, if you remain unconvinced, I will continue to base my view on what was actually said than what I am told second-hand.

Unconvinced by Dubya's speeches. He was shown to be full'o'shite. By his own inspection team after the war. Is there something there that I'm missing other than an example of Dubya's mendacity and cluelessness?

Say, what do you think of this:

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom." -- Duyba (from your quote above).

Hate to say it, but Iran actually has elections (albeit the representative governing bodies are under the check of the mullahs in the end if they get too far out of line according to the mullahs). Compare and contrast to our "friends" there in ... say, Saudi Arabia ... and Jordan ... and Kuwait ... etc., etc. As for "export[ing] terror", IIRC, 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Strangely enough, in the U.S., thanks to Dubya's propaganda campaign, less that 20% of the people could correctly answer how many of the hijackers had come from Iraq.

Here's a lie, BTW:

"This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors." Dubya on Iraq (same source).

The actual truth is that the inspectors left after being recalled, on the request of Clinton. Granted, Saddam didn't let them back in until 2002 again, but he wasn't the one that kicked them out (and there was that unfortunate situation with the U.S. using the inspections teams to put their spies into Iraq, which certainly didn't encourage Saddam to let them back in, and in fact gave him an excuse not to....).

More Dubya:

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."

Not painting a picture of a Saddam/al Qaeda link, eh? No, couldn't be....

Another Dubya lie:

"We'll be deliberate,..."

OK, well maybe not a total lie, but certainly grossly inaccurate.

Then there's this:

"Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world." -- Dubya.

Which you refer to:

Is perfectly entitled to mention any regime or country sponsoring terrorist causes and any terrorist organisation when referring to the United States of America's declared war on terror, he has defined the scope of it in the first paragraph quoted....

Here you're making the fallacy of bifurcation. You assume that Iraq must be one or the other of these in Dubya's mistaken view of things. Not so; logically, Dubya could -- and did try to make the case that Iraq was both of these things. And in fact, Iraq was pretty much neither of these things -- both grounds were pretty much bogus and based on horrible "intelligence". Which is why, for a while, the maladministration started harping on the (so-called) 'humanitarian' rationale for the invasion.....

So the Bipartisan House Security Committee and the intelligence and security agencies of the USA did not Identify the following Countries as posing a possible threat to the US through possible future provision of support (technical, financial, or material) to international terrorist groups: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba....

Cuba??? Well. That surely salts it. Nothing as dangerous as good 'ol Fidel, nosirree. Say, I keep forgetting. Where's that terrorist Orlando Bosch hiding out nowadays? Who's giving him asylum and thus supporting international terrorism. What about airplane bomber Luis Posada Carriles? Yep, time to go bomb and invade the country that provided these heinous mass muderers asylum, dontcha think?

But are we getting a bit weasely here, Teribus? "possible threat ... through possible future provision of support"? Anything like "weapons of mass destruction program related activities"? As I said way up top, time to go invade the Federated States of Micronesia, never can be too careful, yaknow. Or better yet, the Republic of Palau. I'll volunteer to scout out the beaches there as long as Uncle Sam pays the dime....

It's all a Pack of Lies is it Arne?...

No. pack'o'lies is the Dubya maladministration's hyping of piss-poor "intelligence" from people known to be frauds....

...Don't think so, FBI definitely thought so on 11th February 2003.

Ummmm, what did the FBI "definitely th[ink]" on 11th Feb., 2003? Do go on....

There was no propaganda campaign because there was absolutely no need for one Arne and your suppositions and analysis based on second hand information are totally unconvincing.

Already addressed this fallacy of yours. That the Dubya maladministration, acting rationally, shouldn't have engaged in a propaganda campaign is hardly evidence that they didn't. OTPH, we have much evidence that they did in fact do precisely this (adn for the reasons I mentioned above). You're sounding a bit like a broken record, Teribus. Time to get into a new groove of the "Dubya Apologia" vinyl Billboard topper....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:51 PM

Cheney quote from this past Tueday in addressing the 10th Mountain Divison and the National Guard;s 42nd Infantry Division (Fort Dunn, N.Y):

"Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq... we simply stirred up a hornets nest. They over look the fundamental fact: We were not Iraq and the terrorists hit us anyway"...

Now I'm not too sure why T-Denial would continue this tact if it were indeed going to land his ship on the coral reef but, hey, that is his problem...

I sometimes think that T-Lonely is the only person on the planet who still argues that Buch and Co. haven't made repeated attempts to link "terrorists" to Iraq....

Like what is he missing here???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 10:18 PM

Teribus--

Well now, let's see what you've accomplished.

1) You've been forced to admit that the US had no authority from the UN to invade Iraq--therefore your citing of UN resolutions is totally immaterial.

2) You've been caught in either a stupidly careless errror or a lie, of alleging-- several times---that something actually said in 2001 was said in 2002--while ignoring what was really said.

Yes, it does in fact matter--in fact it's crucial to the debate--since the propaganda campaign against Iraq was from about mid-2002 to the invasion in March 2003. In 2001, you may just possibly recall, the Taliban was the focus.

We'll be charitable and say you were stupidly careless--as well as being a poor reader, not to notice that I had caught your error days before, and said so. I also caught my own error--almost immediately-- in reading your 2002 as 2003 once, and said as much. You however, who make egregious errors in virtually every post, never admit it. It does not help your credibility.

3) You have proven--twice so far--that you can't even keep your temper. (I'm just waiting for the third time.) Had this been a debate, you would have lost long ago. You probably would have been booted off any debate team long since--as a liability.   It appears you haven't learned that temper tantrums score few points.

Now, it seems, you don't know how propaganda works--that it does not require a blunt statement--sometimes implication or juxtaposition is more effective.

So now we have the burning question of whether you are stupid or ignorant. Again, being charitable--"the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein"--I will say you are just ignorant.

You need to spend a lot more time at your public library reading history and psychology--and learning how to research--rather than wasting time here with your, pardon the expression, unmitigated drivel.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 10:39 PM

The qoute "we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague" does not appear in this thread.

What does appear is "we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official"

This is very much the same sort of thing Clinton has been so thoroughly criticized for when he said "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

It's all about plausible deniability. Don't come right out and say it, but word things in such a way that people get a certain impression in their minds. You can deny you were trying to do it, and you still get the results you were after (convincing people of something that is not true). The proof is in the pudding - in this case, the number of people who held false beliefs about Saddam being all or partly responsible for 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM

But Ron, don'tr you realize is what you haveordered up is yet another "War and Peace" rebuttal with all kinds of tricks and fancy gadgets??

T-Denial don't cop to jay-walkin', Ron...

Hey. like you, I don't have a clue what his motivation is??? If he believes the stuff he says then, yeah, pathology is not out of the asssesment...

Like you, I'd rather think that T-Dumbass is just ill informed than to think T-Nutball is a mental case...

Either way, he is seriously wrong on this one...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 11:04 PM

Oh! Oh! Such marvelously weighty posts. Almost orgasmic in their intensity. I am rivetted to the screen as the hours pass by. I score Arne and Ron Davies in the lead now, with Teribus fighting manfully, but slowly and surely losing ground. I begin to suspect that Bush actually IS the worst liar and scoundrel since...Idi Amin? Hitler? Joe Stalin? Sawney Bean? Satan?

I begin to feel the possibility of a resolution to this question of Bush's culpability.

I have devoted at least 85 hours already to studying this matter, as it has been debated on Mudcat, and I have sacrificed much in so doing. Surely my dedication will come to fruition, justifying this donation of my time and energy. Surely.

I await the post that will nail this one in its coffin and put it finally to rest. Any day now...any day.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 11:20 PM

Yo, Mirsy,

If yer still awaitin' the final blow then might as well go home... It has been landed and you missed it... T-TKO'd is on the canvas an' the ref is at 7 on the 8 count...

Yeah, expect one more vailiant charge with a War-'n-Peace lenght crap-buttle but this one is over... T-Dethroned has met his match here... He should have just said, "Yeah, my guys did link Saddam to 9/11... So what???" but, als he din't an' now he has lost...

(But don't tell him. Maybe he'll make that one last valiant post to prove it above anything else he has posted... And we all owe him that last post but, sniff, the great T has been brought down...)

I raise my cup to both Ron and T but, like anyhting in life, there's always a new chapter and maybe T will learn a little from his bullheadedness... Maybe not... But he should remember that his premise was defeated here on this thread! Absolutely defeated!!!

But good game, T-Came-up-short!!! Heck, considering the hand that younmwere dealt, you know with a lieing bunch of creeps to defend, you did an admirabale job...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 03:21 AM

Ron, Arne,

How propaganda works - Example

"Olbermann Uses Selective Edits to Show"

Cheney Tied Iraq to 9/11
   
On Wednesday night MSNBC's Chris Matthews refused to concede that he had distorted Dick Cheney's comments about a 9/11 link to Iraq and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann set out to prove that Cheney had drawn such a connection, but Olbermann selectively edited a series of Cheney remarks, leaving out Cheney's specific rejection of any such connection.
   
On Hardball the night after the vice presidential debate, Matthews informed his viewers: "The Republican National Committee today criticized me for saying on the Today show this morning that the taped remarks we showed last night of the Vice President's statement on Meet the Press established the fact that in no uncertain terms that the Vice President has asserted that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The RNC said we were being selective and cited this clip from the same Meet the Press."
   
Matthews had cited Cheney's reference to how the Iraq war hit at "the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11," as proof that Cheney was blaming Iraq for 9/11. In the fuller clip from the 2003 interview, however, Russert asked Cheney if "the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?" Cheney rejected the notion: "Oh I wouldn't, I was careful not to say that."
   
Nonetheless, the MRC's Geoff Dickens observed, Matthews refused to back down, going only so far as to put it in the hands of the audience: "I'll leave it to you, the viewer to decide on that one."
   
In MSNBC's next hour on Wednesday night, Olbermann insisted on the 8pm EDT Countdown that "Cheney's forceful performance at the debate was also self-sabotaged on this day after by comparisons between his insistence last night that he never implied a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and the series of times that he has." But to make his case, Olbermann distorted and selectively edited a series of Cheney quotes.
   
First, a rundown of Wednesday's Hardball segment and then a full comparison of Olbermann's Cheney quotes to what Cheney really said.
   
-- Hardball, October 6. Chris Matthews noted: "Also last night after the vice presidential debate we aired a report by NBC's Brian Williams pointing to cases where the candidate said things that were contradicted by previous statements."
   
In fact, the Williams segment ran several times: During NBC's post-debate coverage, a bit later on the Matthews-anchored MSNBC post-debate coverage and again on Wednesday's Today show.
   
Matthews replayed the Williams segment. Williams had asserted: "The first exchange we're gonna show you came during the second round of questions. What you're about to see is Vice President Dick Cheney, who Senator Edwards charged tonight has repeatedly Iraq linked Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. This was the Vice President tonight in his own defense."
   
Dick Cheney in the debate: "The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
   
Williams: "But here is the Vice President on Meet the Press, one year ago, September 14, 2003. He was asked to define success in Iraq."
   
Cheney on the September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the, the, the base if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11."
   
Williams: "So Vice President Cheney from tonight's debate and from Meet the Press just over a year ago."
   
As I noted in the October 6 morning edition of CyberAlert: "But that doesn't contradict what Cheney said in the debate since in 2003 Cheney was simply arguing that Iraq lies in an area of the world which spawns terrorists, including those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, not that the Iraqi regime specifically contracted the attack."
   
Tuesday night, Matthews soon harangued Ben Ginsberg of the Bush campaign about it, pounding him incessantly. For those "questions," see the October 6 morning edition of CyberAlert: www.mediaresearch.org
   
On Wednesday's Today, Matthews blasted Cheney: "We have the record from Meet the Press, thank God, to base the truth on. To find the truth. Last night was an argument, the evidence suggests, states in fact, that the Vice President wasn't telling the truth." See the October 6 afternoon edition of CyberAlert for a full rundown of Matthew' rant on Today: www.mediaresearch.org
   
Now, back to Wednesday's Hardball. Matthews acknowledged: "The Republican National Committee today criticized me for saying on the Today show this morning that the taped remarks we showed last night of the Vice President's statement on Meet the Press established the fact that in no uncertain terms that the Vice President has asserted that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The RNC said we were being selective and cited this clip from the same Meet the Press."
   
MSNBC then played a lengthy 1:50 excerpt from the September 14, 2003 Meet the Press which showed that Cheney was talking about making the Middle East region less hospitable to terrorists:
   
Tim Russert: "Can we keep 150,000 troops beyond next spring without, in effect breaking the Army?"
   
Dick Cheney: "Tim we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure is not an option. And, and go back again and think about what's involved here. This is not just about Iraq. Or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it's very, very important we get it right. If we're successful in Iraq. If we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the, the base if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11. They understand what's at stake here. It's one of the reasons they are putting up as much of a struggle they have is because they know if we succeed here that, that's gonna strike a major blow at, at their capability-"
   
Russert: "So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?"
   
Cheney: "Oh I wouldn't, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11 as I said at the beginning of the show changed everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that time was not on our side, that in this part of the world in particular, given the problems we've encountered in Afghanistan which forced us to go in and take action there as well as in Iraq that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it's a global operation."
   
Matthews then opined: "So when the RNC says that when the Vice President said quote, 'we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11,' he wasn't saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. When I first heard the Vice President say that on Meet the Press of September of last year I was struck by the assertion that the tragedy of 9/11 was based in Iraq, that the Vice President was pointing a finger at Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11. The RNC says that's not true. I'll leave it to you, the viewer to decide on that one."
   
Minutes later, Hardball repeated the same slap at Cheney using the same clip in question. David Shuster checked in: "Chris, it was indeed a feisty debate but it was also a one where the experts say the truth got stretched most prominently by the incumbent Dick Cheney. From Vice President Cheney the misleading statements started with this."
   
Dick Cheney during the debate: "The Senator's got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
   
Shuster: "But Cheney suggested exactly that a year ago on Meet the Press when he described Iraq as: "Cheney, on Meet the Press in 2003: "The base if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11."
   
-- Countdown with Keith Olbermann, October 6. Olbermann claimed that Cheney was "self-sabotaged on this day after by comparisons between his insistence last night that he never implied a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and the series of times that he has.

"Cheney, during Tuesday night debate: "The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and the 9/11."
   
Olbermann then played a series of four Cheney clips:
   
#1: Cheney, from September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
   
#2: Cheney, from September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."
   
#3: Cheney, from March 24, 2002 Meet the Press: "One of the lead hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."
   
#4: Cheney, from December 9, 2001 Meet the Press: "It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service."
   
   
Olbermann's distortion of Cheney's point in #1 was fully outlined earlier in this item in the section on Chris Matthews.
   
For the others, MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth tracked down the original interviews and compared the full text to what Olbermann and his MSNBC producers selectively played. The portions run by Olbermann on Wednesday's Countdown are displayed in ALL CAPS.
   
   
On #2, Olbermann left out how Cheney emphasized that "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that," and how Cheney described as "unconfirmed" reports of an Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence.
   
From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
   
Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
   
Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
   
Cheney: "No."
   
Russert then asked on the 2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, MOHAMED ATTA, WHO WAS THE LEAD HIJACKER, DID APPARENTLY TRAVEL TO PRAGUE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. AND ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, WE HAVE REPORTING THAT PLACES HIM IN PRAGUE WITH A SENIOR IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
   
Russert: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?"
   
Cheney: "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be IT'S UNCONFIRMED AT THIS POINT."
   
   
On #3, in fact it was Russert, not Cheney, who raised the question of a Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda link. Cheney, in parts of his answer Olbermann didn't share with his viewers, declared that "with respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there," and HE (CHENEY)LABELLED THE ATTA MATTER AN "ALLEGATION."
   
From the March 24, 2002 Meet the Press:
   
Russert: "Iraq's Saddam Hussein. When we spoke on September 16, five days after the tragic day of September 11, I asked you if any evidence of linkage between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. At the time you said no. There's an article in The New Yorker magazine by Jeffrey Goldberg which connects Iraq and Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda. What can you tell me about it?"
   
Cheney: "I've read the article. It's a devastating article I thought. Specifically, its description of what happened in 1988 when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq, against some his own people. I was aware that he had used chemical weapons against the Kurds. That's been general knowledge, but what the article is very good at is pointing it out in depth that he may have struck, if the article's correct, as many as 200 towns and villages over a 17-month period of time and killed upwards of 100,000 Iraqis.

What's even more depressing is the apparent medical legacy that's left of continuing increased rates of infertility, birth defects, rates of liver cancer among children, etc., as a result of these attacks. It demonstrates conclusively what a lot of us have said is, that this is a man who is a great danger to the region of the world, especially if he's able to acquire nuclear weapons.

With respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there. I read this report with interest after our interview last fall. We discovered, and it's since been public, the ALLEGATION that ONE OF THE LEAD HIJACKERS, MOHAMED ATTA, HAD, IN FACT, MET WITH IRAQI INTELLIGENCE IN PRAGUE, but we've NOT BEEN ABLE yet from our perspective TO NAIL DOWN A CLOSE TIE BETWEEN THE AL-QAEDA ORGANIZATION AND SADDAM HUSSEIN. We'll continue to look for it."
   
   
On #4, which took place just three months after the 9/11 attacks, so well before debate over going to war with Iraq started, Cheney did state his belief that Atta met with the Iraqi intelligence service, but in a caveat excluded by Olbermann, Cheney cautioned: "Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point." In addition, Cheney was responding to a challenge from Russert not to defend the position that Iraq was involved with 9/11, but to evidence that it had been. Russert cited a series of claims about ties to al-Qaeda and then pressed: "Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
   
From the December 9, 2001 Meet the Press:
   
Russert: "Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: 'The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.' And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: 'We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses -- three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it -- a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.' And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck -- and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
   
Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- IT'S BEEN PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED THAT HE DID GO TO PRAGUE AND HE DID MEET WITH A SENIOR OFFICIAL OF THE IRAQI INTELLIGENCE SERVICE in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."
   
It looks like Olbermann "self-sabotaged" his accuracy with such selectively misleading soundbite clips. END OF ARTICLE

Now Ron, Arne - who was doing the editing of those clips? Cheney or MSNBC? Clear example of why you read and establish what was actually said, and the get the context in which remarks are made, rather than read what somebody else says was said.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 03:55 AM

Incorrect Ron Davies - 08 Dec 05 - 10:18 PM

This is what has been accomplished

1) It has been established that, counter to what you obviously believe, the US requires the authority from NOBODY to take steps to defend itself at its national interests. It has been established that Iraq's failure to comply with the terms of the Safwan Ceasefire Agreement was sufficient reason for military intervention in 1998, thereby setting the precedent. If it was good enough for the US under Clinton it must be good enough for the US under Bush.

2) In such matters as making errors I suppose you deem yourself to be infallible. I believe that the date 16th September 2001 appeared in my posts - TRUE? But it was an example of what was being discussed on 8th September 2002 - TRUE? That interview that you rushed into print and condemning because according to you it took place on 8th September 2003 - Then again that can't be right because you are incapable of such stupidity or making such a careless errror.

No lies told repeatedly Ron - fact is you can't read - you certainly seem incapable of understanding what your eyes must surely tell you. Just to refresh your memory and a little test in honesty - Does the date 16th September 2001 appear in the following:

"From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
   
Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
   
Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
   
Cheney: "No."

Well - Does it Ron????

3) "In 2001, you may just possibly recall, the Taliban was the focus." (Ron Davies). Fortunately for the population of the United States of America and the world in general, unlike Ron Davies, the US Administration in office during the period in question proved to be capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time. No Ron the focus post 911 was the security of the United States of America, a focus that required quite a number of complex things to be investigated and established in a fairly short period of time. My contention still stands and both yourself and Arne have failed to answer it - In the period mid 2002 to March 2003 why did the US Government need to wage a propaganda campaign to convince people of a link that that same Administration had already publically stated did not exist?

4) As to the rest of your post, that is purely a personal attack - No skin off my nose - the more you concentrate on those and refuse to address the points raised, the weaker your arguement becomes. By the bye, anyone who relies solely on reported sources as opposed to actual text has very little credibility to start with.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:48 AM

And finally what did our little viking have to say:

GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - 08 Dec 05 - 09:39 PM

Not a damn thing, still from a person who believes that Al-Jazeera is a reputable media source of information, what the hell could you expect.

By the way Arne Saddam kicked the UNSCOM Inspection teams out of Iraq in 1997 having previously withdrawn all co-operation with those teams (violation of Safwan Agreement). Having returned in 1998 Saddam again started to give them the run around once again (Repeated violation of the Safwan Agreement), that is when Bill Clinton felt that enough was enough, advised the UN Team to withdraw and launched "Desert Fox".

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 11:13 AM

Ever read the Marc Antony eulogy in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar"?
Cheyney saying he never claimed a Saddam-9/11 connection is exactly like Antony saying "...but Brutus and Cassius are honorable men".

Yes, context of all quotes is very important. So do let's consider it whenever we see a GWB or Cheyney quote. Cheyney spent months saying "{we don't have proof of a connection between 9/11 and Saddam, BUT so-and-so reports this meeting in Prague}", and "{we attacked Saddam to strike at the terrorists who hit us on 9/11, BUT I'm not saying one thing had anything to do with the other}", and "{the people who hit us on 9/11 have their geographic headquarters in Saddam's region, BUT I've never claimed that they are connected}".

Now Teribus, I would never accuse you of being naive, BUT I own this bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in purchasing.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 11:25 AM

Oh, merciful heavens! What a stunning turnaround, as Teribus strikes BACK with a veritable Oddyssey of quotable material, carefully set out in typical didactic fashion, sparing no effort in presentation!!! Be still, my beating heart. This is the sort of thing I can really get my teeth into. I am now leaning strongly to the notion that George W. Bush is a seriously misunderstood and great man, a man who will lead humanity out of darkness into in a new light of freedom and abundance. And Cheney must be a real peach too. If I ever have children, I am going to name them after Bush and Cheney.

My eyes are red. I've been up all night, studying every word exhaustively. I am impressed.

But what will his opponents come up with now? That is the question.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 12:35 PM

After 580 posts, the answer is: NO weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. So, the title is bullshit. Have a nice argument, folks, and a good day.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 01:10 PM

CarolC:

A little nit-pick:

This is very much the same sort of thing Clinton has been so thoroughly criticized for when he said "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

While Clinton might be derided for carefully parsing words (such as "sexual relations", where he took advantage of a strangely curtailed and corcumscribed legal definition of such that was asymmetric; Judge Wright, after an objection by Bennett, trimmed a more standard legal definition to exclude contact by others with one's own genitalia), the most famous 'example' of this 'careful parsing' was not really an example of such, but was rather an example of his not taking the opportunity to do so.

The questioners had used the present tense in asking whether there "is/was" a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. At that time, Clinton had (finally) called it off with Lewinsky, so that a flat-out negative answer might have been reasonable. Clinton pointed out for the benefit of the questioners that there was a difference between the past tense and present tense of "is" (and implicitly indicated that a correct answer might well depend on which was used).

It may be that the questioners were simply inept in their questioning. I'd point out that the Bronston v. U.S. case points out that it is the responsibility to the questioner to ask the pertinent question and to make sure it's answered, not the responsibility of the person being questioned to figure out what the questioner may be driving at and answer that instead (in fact, one could make a case that an answer to what is not asked -- but which should have been asked -- if different from the answer to the actual question and false, could potentially be perjury). Just as the questioner doesn't get to determine the answers, the deponent doesn't get to choose the questions.

Or it may be that the questioners were purposefully being obtuse or unclear, hoping to generate an answer that might be portrayed as inaccurate, either legally or politically.

Nonetheless, Clinton pointed out (for whatever reason) that the question itself was unclear. Can't fault him for that (particularly since this was a legal proceeding and any unclarity as to what was asked and to what was answered might cause legal problems). You might think him picky there, but that's not quite fair when the actual situation was such that there was a difference in the answer which did depend on "what the meaning of 'is' is".....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 01:32 PM

Clinton taught the world that blowjobs aren't sex. (Try telling that to your significant other when you get back from a folk festival or late night out. However....)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 02:37 PM

Teribus:

On Wednesday night MSNBC's Chris Matthews refused to concede that he had distorted Dick Cheney's comments about a 9/11 link to Iraq and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann set out to prove that Cheney had drawn such a connection, but Olbermann selectively edited a series of Cheney remarks, leaving out Cheney's specific rejection of any such connection.

One flaw in this "logic", Teribus (and I've already pointed it out, but you either ignored it or missed it zipping 10Km above your head):

The maladministration is not logically required to be consistent. They can indeed talk out of both sides of their mouth (and frequently have done so). When we say they have made a "link" of Saddam and al Qaeda, or insinuated a link between Saddam and 9/11, or engaged in a propaganda campaign to stoke up sentiment for an attack on Iraq by tying Saddam in the public mind to the 9/11 attacks, this in no way precludes them from saying on other occasions (and different venues, to different and perhaps more sceptical audiences) that there were no definite ties, no clear evidence, etc. Your claim that they didn't make such a link is immediately refuted by a single quote where they did so, even if they said something else at some other time. And propaganda has no requirement for logical consistency to be effective. As I and others have noted, the propaganda was effective; majorities of the U.S. public thought that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and an alarming number thought that WoMD were found (or even used by Saddam) during the war.

We shouldn't have to have a preznit whose words require a careful and minute parsing in order to glean the truth from what they say. If what's being said is seriously slanted, and what is being implied or insinuated is outright false, they are doing us a disservice and are a bit behind the game in the honesty department. I understand that a detailed disquisition of the evidence "fer and agin" a proposition may not be appropriate in a public speech, but surely the uncertainties and caveats known to exist should have been indicated. Nonetheless, the Dubya maladministration was certain in its pronouncements despite the horribly bad quality of the 'intelligence' behind these pronouncements (i.e., Rummy's "we know where" the WoMD are, Powell's detailing of the various prohibited weaponry before the U.N. complete with 8X10 colour glossies, Dubya's "absolutely", Cheney's "it's been pretty well confirmed, etc.). If nothing else, this certainty constitutes a horrible malfeasance if not a lie.

We know now (with far greater certainty than I had before the war when I thought it a pile'o'crap) that the 'intelligence' was "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" and just outright wrong (which I beg to remind the readers here was the original subject of this thread). We're also finding out more evry day about how even people in the gummint knew that this stuff was shoddy, and that there was far more uncertainty than the maladministration portrayed even in the run up to the war. Top that off with the new information coming in from the U.N. inspectors from the ground, based on checking out the specifics of this 'intelligence', that the 'intellignece' was seriously flawed and that there was little if any chance of there actually being any significant WoMD, the dcision to rush into war at that point based on a rationale of protecting from WoMD simply constitutes criminal malfeasance.

Say, Teribus, what's the source for that huge ol' "clip'n'paste" of yours?...

But I do like this part:

Olbermann then played a series of four Cheney clips:
   
#1: Cheney, from September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
   
#2: Cheney, from September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."
   
#3: Cheney, from March 24, 2002 Meet the Press: "One of the lead hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."
   
#4: Cheney, from December 9, 2001 Meet the Press: "It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service."

As I said before, saying that Cheney denied an explicit tie at any other time (even if that is indeed true) still does nothing to disprove the fact that these quotes do show Cheney making an explicit Saddam/9-11 tie ... repeatedly.

On #2, Olbermann left out how Cheney emphasized that "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that," and how Cheney described as "unconfirmed" reports of an Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence.

So it was a weasely, non-specific insinuation, based on "unconfirmed" (but shoddy and later disproven) 'evidence'.

More Cheney from the (apparntly MRC) article:

With respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there. I read this report with interest after our interview last fall. We discovered, and it's since been public, the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, but we've not been able yet from our perspective to nail down a close tie between the al-Qaeda organization and Saddam Hussein. We'll continue to look for it."

My emphasis there, instead of the MRC's.... He admits to some remanent uncertainties, but the thrust of Cheney's point is still there, quite clearly. This is a far cry from maintaning that there were in fact no ties (which, as I pointed out, would still not disprove that Cheney had at other times made such ties).

Now Ron, Arne - who was doing the editing of those clips? Cheney or MSNBC? Clear example of why you read and establish what was actually said, and the get the context in which remarks are made, rather than read what somebody else says was said.

You'll see my response to this claim of "selective editing" above....

Here's the start of your article:

On Wednesday night MSNBC's Chris Matthews refused to concede that he had distorted Dick Cheney's comments about a 9/11 link to Iraq and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann set out to prove that Cheney had drawn such a connection, but Olbermann selectively edited a series of Cheney remarks, leaving out Cheney's specific rejection of any such connection.

Nonsense. The full quotes don't show Cheney "specific[ally] reject[ing] ... any such connection". The full quotes simply qualify the certainty of the 'evidence', but leave such a "connection" as not only a disticnt possibility, but based on Cheney's inference about the supposedly 'known' meeting, a quite serious likelihood (I don't think that Cheney was suggesting that Atta met the Iraqi guy for tea and small talk). Cheney at the time may have been persuaded by this 'evidence', but in fat the evidence was wrong, and Cheney should have known that, or at least found that out, before making these insinuations.

This is what has been accomplished

1) It has been established that, counter to what you obviously believe, the US requires the authority from NOBODY to take steps to defend itself at its national interests....

Nope. The U.S. (and other countries) may take steps to defend itself if their national interests are in fact at stake. Simply doing so for the purpose of "defend[ing] ... national interests" is subject to a bit of a "reasonable person" standard, e.g., shooting at hallucinations is not "reasonable". It's a fact based determination.

... It has been established that Iraq's failure to comply with the terms of the Safwan Ceasefire Agreement was sufficient reason for military intervention in 1998, thereby setting the precedent....

Nonsense.

... If it was good enough for the US under Clinton it must be good enough for the US under Bush.

The "tu quuque" logical fallacy hardly works in a court of law. But there's a difference in scale between Tomahawk attacks and the invasion and occupation of another country, too.

By the bye, anyone who relies solely on reported sources as opposed to actual text has very little credibility to start with.

From someone who cut'n'paste quotes the MRC (apparently) at length. My, my, my, the hypocrisy....   ;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 06:40 PM

Gad! That's an angle I had not considered. Oh dear. Back to the old drawing board... (worry, worry, fret, fret!)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 06:48 PM

Teribus:

And finally what did our little viking have to say:

GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - 08 Dec 05 - 09:39 PM

Not a damn thing, ...

For those that choose to snip it and/or ignore it. Which may explain why you're so bone-headedly obtuse here about the real world as well. But in point of fact, I said a fair bit (for which I earned the grateful thanks of Mirsy, it seems....).

"Brave, brave Sir Robin, bravely turned his..." Why does that scene keep popping into my head every time I read your posts, Teribus?

... still from a person who believes that Al-Jazeera is a reputable media source of information, what the hell could you expect.

Bit of the ol' "argumentum ad hominem" logical fallacy here, eh? But FWIW, I don't think I quoted al Jazeera here. But perhaps you'd put more faith in the captive press that the U.S. gummint inserts paid propaganda into, no? Or you'd put forth the screechifying RWer Reed Irvine's Media Research Center as some icon of 'fair and balanced' "reputable" reporting?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 06:54 PM

I am going pie-eyed. I can no longer determine who is the indicated speaker, the one in italics or the one who is quoting the one in italics or the other one after that! I am experiencing mental meltdown. I cannot determine who is winning the argument or even whose thoughts I am reading or when. What will happen now? Could this be the end of my search to verify once and for all whether Bush is good or evil?

Perhaps I should eat. And drink water. Yes, that could be it. But I might miss something if I get up from the computer. Oh dear.

I shall order Chinese food. That's it. Ha! I will yet find balm in Gilead.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 07:15 PM

Mirsy:

There aren't any italics here. Perhaps what you should be drinking is a good beer to set your eyes right again. Yes, I'm sure that's the ticket!

Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 07:52 PM

And, fir the record, Mirsy: Don't get confused my T-Pontificates quanity.... Like what's the difference if he does go on for days if that all he's doing... Like, ahhhh, goning on and on but if you ask T-Evader simple yes/no questions, don't look fir any answers becasue yes/no makes T-Nervous nervous and because his dad punished him badly when his dad caught T-Experienmenter experiementin' at age 13 T isn't going to give too many yes/no answers...

But, now listen Mirsy, as in mercy, hey, lets just do a short review here... Hey, it doesn't have to be a "War 'n Peace" lenght review but just a short one... Ahhh, first let me ask you if you have been in a coma for the last 3 or so years???

I'm going to assume that is not the case...

Irregardless of the volumes og bull-feathers that T-Bullfeathers has writtten let me ask you a sinmple question... This has nothing to do with the actual words byu the implications that words carry with them and the inferences that are taken away by the listener of these words...

So here is the entire debate in a nutshell... Doid you come away with the feeling that the Bush/Blair folks wanted you to think that invading Iraq would make you safer from the terrorists???

Yes______

No_______

You see, that is crux of the debate here... It isn't about actual words, though there are plenty that are purdy danged damning when it come to looking at the actual words that Bush and Cheney spoke, but as much about what impressions were left in the listener after hearing these words...

The PR campaign was so successfull that even after "Mission Accomplished" the majority of Americansd still believed in the BIG TTHREE: Nukes, WMD and Al Qeada....

Its only now that folms are going, "Hey, wait just a danged minute! Those things turned out to be lies!!!"

Now about the same percentage of Americans who were still believers of the BIG THREE as of Mission Accomplished are now firmly in the "Hey, you lied" camp...

But T-Determines will, as I predicted, continue with evn longer anf longed and longer posts with more of the same old thread-bare crap thinkin' that he might just might convince one person who just awoke from a three coma that Bush never implied that one of the reason he wanted to invade Iraq was because Saddam was linked to Al Qeada???

Of course the Bush war machine implied it!!! Unless you were brain dead at the time you know they did... And in not so disguised wording either, gol dang it...

But now come T-Revisionist who would act as if everyone in Mudville was barindead during the mad-dash to the invade Iraq????

Like, can he actaully believe the stuff he writes??? I can't come close to concieving that T actually believes anything that he writes.. Hey, it's his job!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 08:01 PM

I stand corrected, Guest, 09 Dec 05 - 01:10 PM, in a fairly amused kind of way...

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 08:21 PM

Teribus:

(going back a few posts to unfinished business):

Remember my comment..."you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on."

Arne's own words...."no, I rely oon what reputable media (and even disreputable media, such as "www.whitgehouse.gov") report on what the maladministration said."

Therin lies the difference Arne - I read and listen to what the person says, you, on the other hand, read and listen to what somebody else has reported.

Ummmm ... (sans typos) "www.whitehouse.gov" happens to be the official web page for the maladministration. You're saying they're not particularly accurate??? Be still, my beating heart, I'm sooooooooo let down, can I ever believe the maladministration's blandishments and sweet nothings again?...

OK Arne maybe we are getting somewhere after all - You now apparently accept that the idea of regime change in Iraq came not from George W Bush but from the previous administration under Bill Clinton.

Clue fer ya: "Regime change" ain't the same thing as military invasion and occupation.

[Teribus]: "But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations."

[Arne]: "News flash: Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!!!!"

Arne, would you like to point out exactly where in that sentence of mine quoted above where I have said, inferred, alluded to Iraq attacking the US. And also tell us exactly how the following paragraph of that post of mine started - "Afghanistan...." correct?

So in your twisted mind, when Colombia attacks Argentina, Argentina can go kick the shite outta Peru???

You seem to think that being attacked is somehow license to invade another country, any country, even one that had nothing to do with the attack. That's nonsense, of course.

But as an aside, going to the United Nations isn't sufficient for any attack to bear their imprimatur of legitimacy. They have to approve. But Dubya in fact didn't go to the United Nations to get the sign-off on the invasion (as I've pointed out several times) despite Dubya's promise to force at least a vote just for a show of hands ... precisely because saner heads told him that the vote would be an enbarrassing (and delegitimising) one of 5-13 against military action despite the U.S. efforts to strong-arm and bribe the countries on the Security Council.

UNMOVIC is irrelevant Arne? - How so

Some context for the reading impaired here:

[Teribus]: Arne, at his cherry-picking best,..."Dubya couldn't stop lying afterwards, even, and invented this fantasy (or hallucination? -- scary...) about Saddam not letting the inspectors in (as I posted in an early article here)."

[Teribus]: When was UNMOVIC formed Arne?

[Arne]: Irrelevant.

Your reading skills need some work, Teribus.

Do you deny that the only reason UNMOVIC were eventually invited back into Iraq (Oh yes Arne they had to be INVITED BACK IN) was because the President of the United States of America parked a quarter of a million members of the armed forces of the US on his doorstep, with the clear message comply, co-operate or you will be removed irrespective.

No. Nor did I above. I already told you that the resolution did the job, and that the inspectors were there (with unanimous Security Council approval) and doing what was needed to be done. And when Saddam did allow them in, it was no longer necessary to "remove him from power". Unless Dubya had decided before Saddam let the inspectors back in that it would be necessary, because Saddam "wouldn't let them in ... therefore, after a reasonable request, [he] decided to remove him from power". But that would make Dubya's claims about not having made a decision, and about war being the last resort, a big passle of lies, no?

With regard to the words spoken by Dr. Hans Blix, Arne flounders around alot here, mainly because there's nobody telling him what to think, but he does come up with this absolute GEM:

[Arne]: ....."Words have meaning."

Well, Teribus, only if you ignore what I did say about what Blix had said. You may think I was "flounder[ing]", but simply making that assertion is hardly an argument (except perhaps on Monty Python....).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 08:44 PM

CarolC:

I stand corrected, Guest, 09 Dec 05 - 01:10 PM, in a fairly amused kind of way...

OBTW (if it wasn't obvious from the style), that was me at 1:10 PM).

Maybe I should sign up for Mudcat so I can get my milk and cookies....   ;-)

Who do I pay my dues to? Does membership come with that neat "nude folkie guitar players" calendar (IIRC) that I heard people talking about a couple years ago? Or should I wait for the "nude tin whistles" edition?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:05 PM

Bad news fer yous, Arne...

Ain't no milk 'n cookies...

And worser news... It does come with the nudie calendar 'cept its of a bunch of agin' folk singers... It ain't purdy sight...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM

Bobert:

Ain't no milk 'n cookies...

Dunno about the milk, but I did get my cookie. Now howzabout that calendar; for an aging folkie like myself, a bunch of nudie ol' folkies may be about as much as I can hope for....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 10:57 PM

Well, let's see if I can imitate Cheney's style.

Teribus--I'm shocked that you would consider my post of 8 Dec 10:18 PM to be an attack on you. After all, I took pains to establish that I believed you were just stupidly careless, not a liar. (End of imitation)

Your carelessness continues--as in your acccusation that I consider myself infallible--when I have in fact caught, acknowledged and corrected my own mistake--something you have yet to do, despite a long history of error.

"In the period mid-2002 to March 2003 why did the US government need to wage a propaganda campaign to convince people of a link that that same administration had already publicly stated did not exist?"

Good question--except that we've told you many times already---how many more times til it finally sinks in?

The answer, yet again, is that in 2001 the focus was the Taliban. By mid-2002 the Bush regime had decided to attack Iraq--and wanted it to seem justified in the eyes of the US public. Hence the propaganda campaign was necessary--and eventually successful.

And you STILL have no evidence that it did not take place.

Your only clear statement by a member of the Bush regime that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 is from 16 Sept 2001, the date of a clip watched by Russert and Cheney on 8 Sept 2002.

What was actually said on 8 Sept 2002 supports, rather than disproves the propaganda campaign allegation.

In fact we have given you a blizzard of quotes linking Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 by members of the Bush "team" during the mid-2002 to March 2003 period.

So far, you still have absolutely not one shred of evidence of a CLEAR statement by a Bush spokesman during the above period that there was no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001.

I repeat, yet again--the propaganda campaign during the above period to link Saddam and 11 September 2001 is a fact, not a theory--with the obvious goal that I cited.

Though you have provided much evidence that you don't understand how propaganda works--you still have to visit your local library-- you have provided absolutely no evidence that Bush and co did not carry out the above-cited propaganda campaign between mid-2002 and March 2003.

Nor will you ever be able to come up with the needed evidence of a clear disassociation by a Bush "team member" of Saddam from 11 Sept 2001 during the time of the above-cited propaganda campaign- which was ( yet again)--mid 2002 to March 2003------because such evidence doesn't exist.

Sorry about your crushed ego. Next time when you make a foolish statement, recognize it and back off. Nobody's perfect.

Congratulations, however, for keeping your temper in check.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 11:17 PM

You missed the quote where Cheney said we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague

Yeah Arne, I missed it and I am still missing it because it is not there in quotation marks or otherwise.

Proving you make things up as you go and deny you made anything up. Then you lecture on how stupid we must be to find your mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 12:08 AM

It will sink in when you can produce a quote by the administration stating Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

All the quotes I can find state the opposite.

I never heard any administration officail say they were connected on TV or radio.

I can't understand why some people think GWB said they were connected.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 05:01 AM

OK Ron, let's approach it from this direction. Hypothetically we go along with what you say, and that there was this massive, but subtle, campaign on the part of the Bush Administration to convince people of a link between Saddam Husein and the attacks of 11th September 2001.

When did the the population of the US give their President the go ahead to act?

How did the population of the US give their President the go ahead to act?

I would be very interested in reading your response to those questions. Because Ron, unless there was some way of the population being able to give their President the go ahead and unless there was a clear indication that the majority of US citizens approved action against Iraq then there would be absolutely not point at all in going to all that trouble - would there?

You mention the Taleban as being the focus in 2001 - They were not, or do you deny the work of the House Internal Security Committee tasked with conducting an assessment of all potential threats to the US in the aftermath of the attacks of the 11th September 2001. That work on assessment and evaluation was the focus Ron, not the Taleban, who after all were only Al-Qaeda's hosts. Any combat veteran going all the way back to WWII could tell you that in Afghanistan, once the Northern Alliance was hooked-up and co-ordinated with US air power, the Taleban would be driven from power, it was a foregone conclusion. It did not need the focus of the US administration to direct that. To attempt to put forward, as fact, that the Taleban was the sole focus of the US Government in the wake of the 911 attacks, is incorrect and irrational.

Everything I have read, seen and heard with regard to US policy, strategy, and tactics so far with regard to the war on terror is perfectly in accordance with what your President clearly stated in his State of the Union Address on the 29th January 2002.

For Arne Langsetmo's benefit - if someone now comes along and part edits the first paragraph (like MSNBC) and cuts and pastes it somewhere else - it does not mean that - Teribus states that, "...there was this massive, but subtle, campaign on the part of the Bush Administration to convince people of a link between Saddam Husein and the attacks of 11th September 2001."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:20 AM

Oh how I DO love the political 'discussions' in here !

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:21 AM

As long as I can get the 600tyh post !

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:27 AM

This is the complete conversation:

From the December 9, 2001 Meet the Press:
   
RUSSERT: "Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I ASKED YOU WHETHER THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE THAT IRAQ WAS INVOLVED in the attack and YOU SAID NO. Since that time, A COUPLE OF ARTICLES have appeared which I WANT TO GET YOU TO REACT TO. The first: 'THE CZECH INTERIOR MINISTER SAID today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.' And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: 'We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses -- three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it -- a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.' And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck -- and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
   
Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was THAT REPORT that -- IT'S BEEN PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED THAT HE DID GO TO PRAGUE AND HE DID MEET WITH A SENIOR OFFICIAL OF THE IRAQI INTELLIGENCE SERVICE in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. NOW, WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS, WHAT TRANSPIRED BETWEEN THEM, WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

Olbermann condenses this conversation to:

CHENEY: "It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service."

Honesty check - is the sound byte selected by Olbermann a true reflection of the gist of that conversation?? I certainly don't think it is.

From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
   
RUSSERT: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
   
RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
   
CHENEY: "No."
   
RUSSERT: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
CHENEY: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, MOHAMED ATTA, WHO WAS THE LEAD HIJACKER, DID APPARENTLY TRAVEL TO PRAGUE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. AND ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, WE HAVE REPORTING THAT PLACES HIM IN PRAGUE WITH A SENIOR IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
   
RUSSERT: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?"
   
CHENEY: "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be IT'S UNCONFIRMED AT THIS POINT."

This gets condensed by Olbermann to:

CHENEY: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."

Now Arne Langsetmo might consider the above to be an accurate summation of what was said during those two conversations - I certainly wouldn't.

The sound-bytes were selected by the media, Olbermann or by the Producer, certainly not by the Vice-President or by anyone in the Bush Administration. So who was putting the spin into the equation? Who was determining how the public would react? Not the Vice-President or anyone in the Bush Administration - they after all had no editorial control so it could not have been them.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 09:18 AM

Oh yes! This is good. More quotes! More! I feel we are now getting into the real meat of the matter. The Chinese takeout food has restored my energy and I am craving further debate, accusation, rebuttal, and analysis. This is way better than the WWF.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 02:52 PM

Guest (Geoduck, presumably):

[Arne]: You missed the quote where Cheney said we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague

Yeah Arne, I missed it and I am still missing it because it is not there in quotation marks or otherwise.

Proving you make things up as you go and deny you made anything up. Then you lecture on how stupid we must be to find your mistakes.

Go look here:

    From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - PM
    Date: 08 Dec 05 - 08:47 PM

For a sapient being, that ought to be enough.

Old Guy:

It will sink in when you can produce a quote by the administration stating Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

Covered before (ad nauseam) WRT the Prague meeting that never took place.

Not to mention the comments by the maladministration about the supposed training given to al Qaeda on CBW by Iraq (which we're now finding out was a prime example of finding out what you want to hear, not what you need to hear, when you torture someone).

All the quotes I can find state the opposite.

Oh, really? Care to give us one? No one else has done so yet (see above for what they did say, and for what else they said; as I pointed out, the maladministration is quite capable of talking out of both sides of its mouth).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 03:29 PM

Teribus:

CHENEY: "It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service."

Honesty check - is the sound byte selected by Olbermann a true reflection of the gist of that conversation?? I certainly don't think it is.

It doesn't cover the full conversation (e.g. it leaves out Woolsey's Salman Pak comments, which I'd note Cheney didn't take the opportunity to disagree with), but it pretty well sums up what Cheney said in that sentence. Cheney said he didn't know whether Atta and the Iraqi agent were discussing the price of tea in Sri Lanka or upcoming hijackings. But neither did the shortened sentence indicate this. It left it up to the reader's imagination. Do you think it likely that Cheney brought this up because he had a fondness for Ceylon's finest teas?

Teribus quoting news accounts:

From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
   
RUSSERT: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
   
RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
   
CHENEY: "No."
   
RUSSERT: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
CHENEY: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, MOHAMED ATTA, WHO WAS THE LEAD HIJACKER, DID APPARENTLY TRAVEL TO PRAGUE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. AND ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, WE HAVE REPORTING THAT PLACES HIM IN PRAGUE WITH A SENIOR IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
   
RUSSERT: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?"
   
CHENEY: "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be IT'S UNCONFIRMED AT THIS POINT."

So. "Credible" but "unconfirmed". Actually, false in fact, if you want to get right down to it.

As I pointed out, Cheney never denied a link. He denied any "evidence" (early on), but then added in this "evidence" (of the supposed Prague meeting) later.

He won't make a "specific allegation" ... and Brutus is an "honourable man".....

This gets condensed by Olbermann to:

CHENEY: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."

Now Arne Langsetmo might consider the above to be an accurate summation of what was said during those two conversations - I certainly wouldn't.

Actually, it covers it quite well. The gist of Cheney's latest comments (as of Sept. 8th, 2002) is that there's reports of Atta meeting Cheney (and as Cheney says elsewhere [Dec. 9th, 2001]), this has been "pretty well confirmed").

The sound-bytes were selected by the media, Olbermann or by the Producer, certainly not by the Vice-President or by anyone in the Bush Administration. So who was putting the spin into the equation? Who was determining how the public would react? Not the Vice-President or anyone in the Bush Administration - they after all had no editorial control so it could not have been them.

But the sound bites point out quite clearly the "take-home" message that Cheney was trying to convey. If he thought they were discussing the upcoming MLB playoffs, I don't think he'd think it worth the bother to mention.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 03:33 PM

Has anyone seen one of these WMDs yet? Just one? OK then,
has anyone MET someone who's a friend of a guy who knows a gal who heard about a dude who saw one? That would be evidence, IMO. Right now, however, it seems to be speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 05:32 PM

I said: "The gist of Cheney's latest comments (as of Sept. 8th, 2002) is that there's reports of Atta meeting Cheney..."

Ummm, before Teribus gets on my case for this, let me just say I meant (as is obvious from the thread) "Atta meeting an Iraqi agent". Brain spasm. Travails of old age, you know.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 05:45 PM

I know about that. The travels of old age I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 11:15 PM

Ahhhhh, acn anyone define the word "is" for me???

Seems like the T-Talker "is" (opps) gonna try to run out the clock with verbage so folks will just go home... Most have allready quit watchin' so I reckon the strategy is workin' just fine...

Normal...

Hey, what will he try to revise next... Bottom line, the inferences were all there... Okay, they were real carefull to cover their asses while beating the war propaganda drum but, hey, unless you were in a coma during the mad-dash-to-war or unkless you were just so partisan that you couldn't possibly know jack from jil, then you have to know the way it went down... Hey, Bush and Cheney repectedly used "9/11" or "terrorists" in their sales pitches... What was that all about???

I think this debate should have been over a couple dozen or so posts ago and T-Talker should have just thrown in the towel on this point... He is so wrong that it has becomer almost amusing that he would continue to defend a position that the Bush administartion didn't, thru inference, try deperately to tie SWaddam to "terrorism"...

This is not even arguable yet T-Pride-Comes-Before-the-Fall continues wearily with his usaul "Tropic of Cancer" length posts which do not answer the basic questions... That is if there are really any questions....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 11:03 AM

Arne, we did the nude calendars. Or "nearly nude" calendars, as the case may be. We did them for two years, and then people sort of lost interest in doing them.

Bobert, I'm IN those calendars. Twice! I'm very sorry you thought my pictures were that bad.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 11:08 AM

BTW, Arne, you can probably still get the old calendars if you want to, but I'm assuming they still cost $10 each. You could contact Max or Pene Azul to find out.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 02:42 PM

CarolC:

I was jes' kiddin' when I asked about the calendars. If I want to see a folkie nekkid, I just need to waltz out to the bathroom. Not to mention my sweetie has already demanded that I throw away my old Les Blacklock calendars, despite their stunning photography, because they won't be good again for another half decade or so.

But I am waiting for the "tin whistle" edition.   ;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 02:47 PM

Worth a look.

I posted that link because no matter how many times someone says WMDs were found in Iraq, I am gonna post saying that it's BS.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM

We came pretty close to the "tin whistle" thing, Arne. In one of the calendars, one of the "old folkies" (female) who, at the time, was an ancient 24 years of age, was wearing only pan pipes, if I recall correctly. I think Bobert really has never seen those calendars.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 03:17 PM

Yeah, CarolC, I didn't see the calendars but I think I saw a piccure of you somewhat in the buff, 'cept there was a big ass accordian think blockin' my view so I run off a copy on the printer and then folded it just right to see if I could get that danged accordian think outta the way but it din't work...

'Er naybe I dreamed all of this up???

One or the other...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 03:19 PM

Turn the page sideways and you can get a glimpse.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 04:46 PM

PS

NO WMDs were found.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 05:34 PM

CarolC:

In one of the calendars, one of the "old folkies" (female) who, at the time, was an ancient 24 years of age, was wearing only pan pipes, if I recall correctly.

Now you're making me feel like a real dinosaur.... :-(

OK, maybe the calendar's worth a peek ... but my sweetie would skin me alive if I put it up in my office.   ;-)

Bobert (and Peace):

No matter which way you turn the durned thing, you still won't be able to see no WoMDs. Nor is Teribus's honesty anywhere to be found.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 08:18 PM

Based on the discussion above, I just visited the photos page. There seems to be a picture of CarolC nude in front of a Waffle House!

Okay, I WAS squinting from across the room an using (a bit) of imagination.

These "internets" are a baaaad place.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 09:56 PM

Teribus--

You are truly pathetic--still playing at not recognizing Cheney's "on the one hand---on the other hand" quotes as not being part of the propaganda campaign.

As several posters have pointed out, "any sapient being" would be able to tell the difference between such statements and a CLEAR statement finding NO LINK between Saddam and 11 Sept.

I'm sorry this does not seem to include you.

Face it--there was no such clear statement of no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001 made during the period of the Bush propaganda campaign (mid 2002 to March 2003)--for the obvious reason that the Bush team was in fact trying, successfully in the end, to associate Saddam and 11 Sept in the eyes of the US public.

You gotta protect your ego though. I understand.

(Why do I think that if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be pointing out to us how any semi-comatose American should have been able to recognize the propaganda campaign?)

And as for your picayune criticism of the Taliban as the focus in 2001--as you yourself pointed out, they were bin Laden's hosts at the time.

My point, which you are again playing you are too stupid to get (which I don't believe is the case)--is that Afghanistan, not Iraq, was the focus in 2001

I think all sides recognize that bin Laden was the real target then--of course now he's often called Osama bin Forgotten--wonder why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 10:21 PM

Obviously, what I meant to say is that Cheney's "on the one hand... on the other hand" quotes were in fact part of the propaganda campaign at issue here.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 02:19 PM

In sad news on the Iraq invasion and occup.... -- umm, sorry, "war" -- it was reported that the vaunted Teribus has gone missing in action....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 04:02 PM

Does this mean the end is in sight?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 05:40 PM

Oh Lawd have Mirsy, what will you do???

Guess you'll be reduced to adopting cute pandas (and an even cuter polar bear (who, despite his cuddliness, would dearly like to bite your head off) over on the WWF site..... ;-)

Happy holid.... -- ouch, Ouch, OUCH! OK, OK, Mr. O'Reilly, I'll say it!: Merry Christmas!

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 05:47 PM

How cdould you, Arne?

"Teribus and honesty" in the same sentence???

Have you lost yer mind???

They shouldn't even share the same paragraph...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 05:57 PM

NO WMDs FOUND YET

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:20 PM

The period of "The Bush Propaganda Campaign That Never Was"

According to Ron this was the period mid 2002 to March 2003

From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press (Date falls within Ron's stipulated period). What is quoted below was "Said"/"Aired"/Broadcast/"Could be heard" within the US on 8th September 2002:
   
RUSSERT: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
   
RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
   
CHENEY: "No." (- Now Ron it is fairly clear that the Vice President does not believe that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi's were linked to the 911 attacks and the viewers, listeners heard him say that on 8th September 2002)
   
RUSSERT: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
CHENEY: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.

(- Now Ron it is fairly clear that the Vice President does not believe that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi's were linked to the 911 attacks and the viewers, listeners heard him say that "live" on 8th September 2002)

On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did APPARENTLY travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have REPORTING that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."

(-OK Ron where is he planting the seeds in everyones mind?:
- Pretty obvious they'd look at possible Al-Qaeda/Iraq connections, US intelligence had been looking at those for almost a decade at this stage.
- Refers to the possibility that Atta "APPARENTLY" travelled to Prague (Note the use of "apparently")
- Refers to reports that "places him" in Prague with (at the same time as? actually in the company of? could mean either) a senior Iraqi intelligence official
- Refers to the fact that all of this was the subject of debate (i.e. differing opinion, as yet unresolved)
   
RUSSERT: "What does THE CIA SAY about that? Is it credible?"

(- Ron are you perfectly clear what is being asked here? Put another way RUSSERT is asking Cheney "Do the CIA believe that these reports are credible")
   
CHENEY: "It's credible. But, you know, I THINK a way to put it would be IT'S UNCONFIRMED AT THIS POINT."

(- Here Ron the Vice-President answers the specific question he has been asked, but immediately qualifies it by clearly stating that the reports as yet remain unconfirmed.)

Now what was it that you claimed they were trying to do:

Ron Davies...."Face it--there was no such clear statement of no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001 made during the period of the Bush propaganda campaign (mid 2002 to March 2003)--for the obvious reason that the Bush team was in fact trying, successfully in the end, to associate Saddam and 11 Sept in the eyes of the US public."

Well Ron if you had viewed that programme on the 8th September 2002, provided that you were not stone deaf, you would have heard the Vice President of the United States of America state very clearly on two occasions (one recorded, one live) that there was no link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001 - TRUE?? The transcripts there, that was what was aired.

Therefore you are incorrect regarding there being, " no such clear statement of no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001 made during the period of the Bush propaganda campaign (mid 2002 to March 2003)" As clearly shown above the transcript shows there were.

And if the rest, clearly explained and heavily qualified is supposed to illustrate the Bush team trying, successfully in the end, to associate Saddam and 11 Sept in the eyes of the US public, then they were going about it in a very strange way.

"On the other hand" to quote Vice President Cheney, MSNBC and Olbermann for some reason saw fit to edit all of the above to:

CHENEY: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."

Why is the clear statement that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 911 not worthy of mention? Who left it out and why?

With regard to the passage they do quote, where are the Vice-Presidents qualifications? Why were they left out?

It would appear that the MSNBC team were trying, successfully in the end, to associate Saddam and 11 Sept in the eyes of the US public. Not the President, Vice-President, or any member of his Administration, because as stated previously they did not have editorial control of that programme, MSNBC and Olbermann did.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:34 PM

Aha! I knew it wasn't over yet. I am all ears (so to speak). I sit with pad in hand, making notes and keeping score. I am well stocked up on dried food and water and am prepared to hang in there for the next 6 months, if necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:44 PM

So NOW we are expected to believe the consumate pathological LIAR, Dick Cheney, T?

Great source, pal...

...NOT!!!

You are graspin' a straws, T-Grasper.... Nuthin' but straws...

Ahhhh, BTW, how many WMD's were found in Iraq today other than the ones owned and controlled by the occupiers???

And just fir the record, why again is it that Saddam wasn't offed??? (In 50 words or less, please...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:47 PM

To the contrary, nothing short of 500 words would do that question full justice! At the very least. The strong, silent type is not what we need here, Bobert. We need someone who is not afraid to keep talking LONG after everyone else has left the room.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 08:28 PM

Well, Mirsy, you got yer man in T-Bore... I heard that he loves the sound of his own voice so much that he sets his alarm for 2:00 am, gets up, walks into the bathroom, looks himself in the mirror and talks to himself fir a half an hour before returning to bed... Hey, not that I have first hand knowledge but that's word on the street...

But that's the problem every time I ask him about if Saddam was the problem why Bush didn't just have Saddam killed... He reponds but make me fall asleep before I get to the answer...

Seems to be the T-MO... Bore the competition into submission....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 09:01 PM

Well, Teribus -- strangely surprised that the fourth (or so) repetition of the same tired quotes and illogic hasn't managed to convince and convert the sceptics here -- thinks that yet another rewarming of the SOS here will do the trick. To which, much to the dismay of Mirsy here, I can only say that what I have previously said in response to Teribus's twaddle still remains unaddressed and undisputed. Teribus simply sees it as his duty to continue micturating against the prevailing air flow....

Until such time as that situation changes, can we discuss the calendars?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 10:28 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
        
Last Updated: Wednesday, 7 July, 2004, 04:39 GMT 05:39 UK

US reveals Iraq nuclear operation
US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham
Abraham called the operation a "major achievement"
The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.

He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".

Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.

The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories.

It was flown out of the country aboard a military plane in a joint operation with the Department of Defense, and is being stored temporarily at a Department of Energy facility.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency - and Iraqi officials were informed ahead of the operation, which happened ahead of the 28 June handover of sovereignty.

'Dirty bomb'?

The explosion of a so-called "dirty bomb" in a city by a terrorist group is a major concern of Western intelligence agencies.

Rather than causing a nuclear explosion, a "dirty bomb" would see radioactive material combined with a conventional explosive - probably causing widespread panic and requiring a large clean-up operation.

US troops look down on the facility at al Tuwaitha
Iraq's biggest nuclear complex was the Tuwaitha site south of Baghdad

Uranium would not be suitable for fashioning such a device, though appropriate material may have been among the other unidentified "sources".

Mr Abraham added that the operation had also prevented the material falling into the hands "of countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons".

The 1,000 "sources" evacuated in the Iraqi operation included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical purposes and industrial purposes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration told AP news agency.

Bryan Wilkes said much of the material was "in powdered form, which is easily dispersed".

The IAEA has been among organisations which have warned that many countries have lost track of radioactive material.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 11:16 AM

Arne, Ron,

Do you deny that the Vice-President of the United States of America said the following on the 8th September 2002:

"I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

It requires a simple yes, or no,answer.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 02:30 PM

Teribus-

You are just amazingly dense--you set new standards with every post.

What do you suppose "new information has come to light" means? (Which Cheney then details in a catalogue you yourself quoted?)

If he meant to say there was no connection between Saddam and 11 September 2001, why say anything but precisely that?--the catalogue was entirely unnecessary.

Unless of course he did mean to muddy the water--and in fact raise-- many--possible connections between Saddam and 11 September.

Which, as I've said ad nauseam is part of the propaganda campaign.

Read the paragraph starting with the "new information has come to light" sentence--carefully, for once in your Mudcat existence.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM

I will answer with a simple NO. Oh he certainly said it. But note that it is a sentence that contains both the word "Iraq" and the phrase "9/11". And THAT is the whole point. You are the one who has (quite correctly) railed about the context of statements. what does the context of this statement tell you?


Now, I am not here today make the specific allegation that Teribus is being exceptionally literal to the point of imbecility. I cannot say that I have conclusive evidence that he is completely unable to understand the meaning of a statement.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 02:57 PM

You're right, TIA, we'd never want to say that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 02:58 PM

No indeed. That might offend.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 03:10 PM

Calling somebody "dense" might also offend. And we always try to keep our discussions free of all emotional language and hurtful speech.

But, please, Teribus, check the parallel between TIA's statement and Cheney's 8 Sept 2002 language--at issue here.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 03:11 PM

Teribus:

Arne, Ron,

Do you deny that the Vice-President of the United States of America said the following on the 8th September 2002:

"I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

It requires a simple yes, or no,answer.

Are you hard of reading, Teribus? You certainly seem to be, seeing as I included that particular quote here:

From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - PM
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 02:37 PM

So the answer to your ignorant and irrelevant question is "no".

I responded to this quote there in that previous post, and have pointed out that while Cheney says (ala "Brutus is an honourable man") he's not there to make a "specific allegation", he sure as h*** doesn't want to specifically deny any connection (nor does he do such, as was explained to you when I posted more of what Cheney said.

Yet you continue to ignore the fact that a single instance where the maladministration tries to tie the two together is sufficient proof that they did in fact do so (no matter how many quotes to the contrary), and you ignore the fact that not a single maladministration pronouncement (including the ones you've proffered) actually denies that there was any Saddam-al Qaeda or Saddam-9/11 connection.

So now you (and the lurkers such as Mirsy) can see why I accuse you of proffering the same ol' tripe over and over, and why I accuse you of failing to respond to what I have said.

Now about those calendars.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 06:39 PM

TIA - 13 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM

"I will answer with a simple NO. Oh he certainly said it. But note that it is a sentence that contains both the word "Iraq" and the phrase "9/11". And THAT is the whole point. You are the one who has (quite correctly) railed about the context of statements. what does the context of this statement tell you?"

Ron Davies - 13 Dec 05 - 03:10 PM

"please, Teribus, check the parallel between TIA's statement and Cheney's 8 Sept 2002 language--at issue here."

Ron, TIA way back on the 16th September 2001 the man was asked if there was any linkage between Saddam Hussein/Iraq to the 911 attacks. His answer to that question at that time was an unequivocal no. Almost one year later the man is reminded of that question and is asked if his opinion has changed, to which he replies, "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

The context of the statements clearly indicates that in the course of that interview Dick Cheney on two occasions stated quite categorically that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsover to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001.

Now TIA I believe that if you were asked if there was a link between A and B in relation to situation, or circumstance, C, then you would have a bloody hard time providing a meaningful answer without referring to A, B & C if not in the same sentence, certainly within the same paragraph.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 06:54 PM

"Now I can't confirm that Teribus has been seen in the company of young boys..."

"When one thinks of Teribus one might also think of unthinkable things that some grown men do with young boys..."

"Well, young boys and Teribus go somewaht hand in hand"

Now, where have I accused T of anything here? I haven't, but if I get everyone in Mudville to make satements similar to the ones that I pulled out of the air then after a while T is "guilty" in most folks minds...

This is what the Bush folks have done... They insinuate, they infere and then when they are caught at their game, they deny it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM

Teribus:

Ron, TIA way back on the 16th September 2001 the man was asked if there was any linkage between Saddam Hussein/Iraq to the 911 attacks. His answer to that question at that time was an unequivocal no.

Horsepuckey. From your post:

Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

He was asked if there was any "evidence". And he said "no". That is to say, no evidence of such a linkage (and at that, evidence of the more specific linkage to the 9/11 attacks, not the more general linkage of Saddam to al Qaeda in general). I pointed this all out to you before. I pointed out the word "evidence". I pointed out the denial of evidence of the more specific allegation. I pointed out that Cheney didn't volunteer this, and that his one-word "no" was hardly a resounding statement that there was no link, despite your continuing attempts to portray this comment as such. Of course, you ignored this, and continued with your standard blathering....

Almost one year later the man is reminded of that question and is asked if his opinion has changed, to which he replies, "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

Yeah, and what did he say right after that???

Covered above in my post. Which you also ignored.

The context of the statements clearly indicates that in the course of that interview Dick Cheney on two occasions stated quite categorically that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsover to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001.

Nonsense. Nothing "categorical[]" about it. Nothing about "nothing whatsoever to do with...." In fact, instead he went on to talk about the head 9/11 hijacker, Atta, (supposedly) meeting with a high Iraqi intelligence agent in the months before the attack. Also covered in previous posts. Which you also ignored.

Your boat has sunk, Teribus. And rusted. And is barnacle-encrusted.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 11:51 AM

Now for what Arne says, in his post of 13 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM, to hold water Russert's questions, down to the exact wording of the those questions, would have to have been supplied by Dick Cheney. I don't see MSNBC and "Meet the Press" operating that way, does anybody else.

Arne you are wriggling, dancing on the head of a pin, what we were reliabley informed by Ron Davies was that no statement was made by GWB, Dick Cheney, or any member of the Bush Administration in the period mid summer 2002 to March 2003, to the effect that there was no link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 - I have clearly shown that two such statements were broadcast during that period - That is Fact, learn to live with it.

GWB and his administration had no editorial control over the programme.

Neither yourself or Ron have explained why in the period selected by Ron that the US Administration would have to mount a propaganda campaign.

1. Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

2. Russert: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.

As I said it's pretty clear to me, apparently not to Arne and some others, but if need be we'll go over the helicopter'n'no-fly zone routine with Arne one more time, eventually it will sink in.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 02:02 PM

Teribus:

Now for what Arne says, in his post of 13 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM, to hold water Russert's questions, down to the exact wording of the those questions, would have to have been supplied by Dick Cheney. I don't see MSNBC and "Meet the Press" operating that way, does anybody else.

No. But I can't be held responsible for your difficulties in logic.
You're quite right that it was Russert that framed the question. But it was Cheney that answered that question. You may argue that Cheney intended to answer a different question, but the facts, as they are, are that the question he asnwered was the one asked.

I'd be glad to agree that Cheney didn't answer a different question: "... was [there] any linkage between Saddam Hussein/Iraq to the 911 attacks?" And the answer to this, never being asked, was not "an unequivocal no" (which, BTW, means that you're a lying sack'o'shite'). You're back to square one, Teribus (which, to be honest, you've been at for weeks now): You haven't provided a single quote where the maladministration has denied the existence of any links between Saddam and al Qaeda (or even between Saddam and 9/11).

... what we were reliabley informed by Ron Davies was that no statement was made by GWB, Dick Cheney, or any member of the Bush Administration in the period mid summer 2002 to March 2003, to the effect that there was no link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 - I have clearly shown that two such statements were broadcast during that period - That is Fact, learn to live with it.

Nope. Zero. Zilch. Nada. When you find such a quote, feel free to proffer it. But keep in mind my previous point: Even if they had done such (which they haven't), it still doesn't refute the charge that they did indeed attempt to link Saddam and al Qaeda (and even the 9/11 attacks). As I pointed out (and as you also ignored), there's no requirement (unfortunately) that the maladministration act honestly, consistently, or logically; they are quite capable of talking out of both sides of their mouths, and even the quotes that you have posted from Cheney, talking about the alleged meeting between Atta and the senior Iraqi official, did precisely that (not to mention the repeated conflating of 9/11 and Iraq, and terrorism and Iraq). And as we now are finding out, the maladministration's claims of Saddam running a training camp for terrorists was another pile'o'crap, and known to be so by the intelligence community, which was ignored by the maladministration as studiously as you're ignoring obvious facts here yourself.

Neither yourself or Ron have explained why in the period selected by Ron that the US Administration would have to mount a propaganda campaign.

Yes, we have. To "sell" the friggin' war. See, e.g., Andrew Card's unintentionally revelaing comment about bringing out new "products" in August.

The remains of your tripe is the SOS rewarmed -- what is it up to now? -- a fifth time? Not to mention an example of precisely the type of "quote mining" you accuse others of doing, when you so carefully leave off what Cheney said right after that denial of intent to make "specific" accusations.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 03:21 PM

Arne Langsetmo Reveals All:

Arne - 14 Dec 05 - 02:02 PM

Teribus:

"You're quite right that it was Russert that framed the question. But it was Cheney that answered that question."

So you want the world and it's dog to believe that it is all a great big conspiracy - I never would have guessed, how amazing - well no, not really, just the same old Arne Langsetmo crap, rather poorly presented.

While you were tying yourself in knots explaining away the 16th September 2001 quote, you selectively ignored the one given on 8th September 2002. Still no doubt a Conspiracy Theorist of your calibre will come up with something or other - all of it equally preposterous.

So we now have Arne intimating that:

1. MSNBC and their Programme "Meet the Press" is under the direct control of the Bush Administration and that all "interviews" with members of the Bush Administration are "fixed" to further the cause of "The Propaganda Campaign That Never Was".

2. Still no explanation as to why the propaganda campaign has to be run - like who do they have to convince? You rather weakly churn out, the usual anti-war, anti-Bush, left-wing crap - "To sell the freakin' war" - Who to? As I stated earlier - The general populace, why they have no say in the matter - Congress, no need it was their committee that identified, assessed and evaluated Iraq as a threat - The UN in general, they like the population of the US have no say in the matter, and will do what their own Governments tell them to do - The UN Security Council Members, no point they will vote as directed by their Governments. So exactly who were they selling "the freakin' war" to Arne?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 03:36 PM

You won't listen to Arne's answer anyhow, so why don't we ask Andrew Card who he was referring to when he talked about sellng the war?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 03:37 PM

"selling"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 04:51 PM

Teribus says: *** ummmm... -- nothing new, nothing different, nothing responsive, and nothing evincing even the slightest whiff of sapience ***

OK.

When's the "tin whistle" calendar coming out (says Arne with a SEG; he plays a hammered dulcimer plenty big enough to cover any embarrassing bulges of any kind...)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:07 AM

OK Teribus--

You were going to tell us what "new information has come to light" (Cheney 8 Sept 2002) means to you.

Do you think you can take time out from your busy schedule of stocking the lake with red herring to answer the question?


Now, don't forget to be creative. After all, you stand to win another award--this one a plaque of a blind Mudcatter--in recognition of your wilful blindness. It'll look great next to your other awards--for sophistry and for creative interpretations of foreign policy--that last one, you recall, you won for your idea that Bush's invasion of Iraq was just taking direction from Clinton--truly an imaginative stroke.

So, do you think Cheney was just being his garrulous and charming self--and instead of talking about DC's chances for a baseball team, decided on the spur of the moment to talk instead about Atta's supposed meeting in Prague? Just the luck of the draw, right? Cheney had just read US News and World Report and felt like discussing geopolitical issues. If he'd read Better Homes and Gardens he might have given us his recipe for Cajun chicken instead, right?

Sure is fascinating that your chosen quote from 8 Sept 2002 is "Well, I want to be careful about how I say this. I'm not here to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that."

But somehow you left out what he said directly after that.

Which undercut--badly--the supposedly clear statement you love to quote.

You really need--in the worst way--to visit your local library to read some history and psychology--to find out how propaganda works.

You obviously have no clue.

What about your oh-so-earnest concern with context? Somehow you don't seem to care about context here.

Like TIA, I have a modest imitation of Cheney's style. Perhaps you can begin to learn about propaganda by reading it.



Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Teribus somehow was responsible for his own house burning down. I can't say that.

On the other hand, new information has come to light. And there has been reporting that suggests Teribus had extremely serious financial difficulties. We've seen Teribus talking to known arsonists. And we have reporting that places him in a hardware store, a place where inflammable liquid has been sold, a few days before the house burned.


Are you beginning to see?

It's easy.


Again, so sorry about your shattered ego.

Next time, test the strength of the branch before you crawl out on it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 11:56 AM

So neither of you can come up with a plausible reason why the big-bad-Bush Administration had to sell the war, and mount a propaganda campaign to do it.

By the bye Ron, I have already given my take on Dick Cheney's responses in an earlier post.

Waffle on all you like - within days of 911, members of the Bush Administration clearly stated that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had NOTHING to do with it - Oh Dear I've mentioned 911, Saddam Hussein and Iraq in one sentence!!!! That means that I must actually believe that they organised the whole thing - NOT!!! Are all you Americans that easily led, I somehow do not think so.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:08 PM

There's a very good reason that many of us have given you, and you have casually (and quite naively) dismissed out of hand, so we'll call it a draw.

And yes, Americans are easily led. That is why 70% of Fox News viewers believe that Saddam was behind 9/11... Despite Dick Cheney's vigorous and valiant attempts to disabuse them of this ridiculous notion, right Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:30 PM

BTW, today's assignment: Tell us the REAL purpose of WHIG (since it was clearly not to "sell the war"). You will get extra credit if you can explain how the timing of its formation and its early activities were entirely unrelated to the US mid-term elections. Five hundred words or more pleas.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:20 PM

Tim Russert: Well, Bobert, do you have any undenialble evidence that Teribus fools around with young boys???

Bobert: No.

............1 year later.............

Tim Russert: Given the allegations by many folks that Teribus has had and continues to have relationships witrh young boys is there no any additional evidence that might indicate that Teribus has relationships with young boys?

Bobert: Well, Tim, let me be very careful in answering your question about the alledged relationship between Teribus and young boys. While there is a strong possibility that Teribus indeed is having realtionships with young boys we have no additional evidence at this point in time...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

See, T, words can do some very tricky things... Given the number of folks that got the distinct impression that Iraq was tied to 9/11 and the terrorists, I think if can safely beargued that this many folks didn't just dream this link up...

The examples I gave earlier and the ones above parallel the kind of PR campaign that the Bush folks used to sell the war in Iraq... If you strip the quotes down, yeah, it can be argued that Bush, and the boys and girl, didn't use the word "evidence" in staking out the claim. They din't need to. They had a slick PR team craft the wording... Just as I have crafted the wording about the "relationship between you and young boys"...

Now, iof I have a team of folks oput in the field with cameras and mics in front of them all saying things much like I have used as examples then it won't be long before yer neighbors start looking at you funny and scurrying thei kids away from you when they see you walking their way...

This is exactly what Bush did...

If you wish to contune to stake a claim that this didn't occurm it is you who will need to drive your claim stake into the head of the pin...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:31 PM

To the idiot who started this thread--the stupid idiot:

Bush admits to bad intelligence on Iraq WMDs

AM - Thursday, 15 December , 2005 08:24:00
Reporter: Michael Rowland
TONY EASTLEY: US President George W. Bush, has accepted responsibility for using what turned out to be faulty intelligence to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Even Bush disagrees with you, ya stunned fool.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 04:13 PM

And in other news, Dubya announced a new person to oversee the Iraq situation and hopefully make some changes to whip that sorry mess into a little less of a fiasco and a hell-hole. The name: Condi Rice.

She takes over this task from the person that headed up the "Iraq Stabilization Group" appointed in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. Person by the name of ...... *ta-da* ...... Condi Rice. You know, common sense: When you're in a hole, stop digging....

As I said, Teribus, both you and the person whose hind teat you're sucking on seem to be enamoured with the alway-successful "SOS repeated ad nauseam" tactic.

And the cost of Iraq? A quarter of a trillion dollars ... and over two thousand U.S. soldiers dead (most of them since Condi stepped up to the plate).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy's Mother
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 05:17 PM

I want you stupid people to know that my son has been hospitalized because of you! That's right! He has been consumed by this endless and pointless wrangle that you are all raving on about daily...to the point where he was not eating, sleeping, washing, or really doing anything productive. He finally collapsed at the computer, gibbering madly. I was informed by his neighbours in the rooming house, and called for an ambulance. I hold all of you responsible. I hold the fool who started this thread responsible. I hold the CIA responsible. I hold George Bush responsible for lying and I hold Cheney responsible. Most of all I hold Teribus responsible. You, sir, are either a lunatic, a complete fool, or a paid government propaganda agent. My only son may have had his mind permanently unhinged by the inability of you people to shut up! I hope you all fall prey to some loathsome disease.

And may I add: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq! Now shut up and go away!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 08:11 PM

I don't think any sane person still asserts that WMD's were found in Iraq. Of course, that may or may not include Teribus.

I'd still, however, like Teribus to explain just what Cheney meant by his 8 Sept 2002 statement that since his clear statement-- on 16 Sept 2001-- that there was no evidence tying Saddam to 9-11, as of 8 Sept 2002 "new evidence has come to light".

If all Cheney meant to do in 2002 was reiterate that, just as in 2001, there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11, why mention "new evidence" that had "come to light" at all?

Also, I hope Teribus has paid a visit to his local library to learn about propaganda and also signed up for an elementary "civics" class, as it's called in the US. I refer to his brilliant observation that the general (US) populace has "no say in the matter" of whether the US goes to war or not.

In fact, the "general populace" had to be convinced, lest they toss out their elected representatives at the first opportunity for voting to give authority to Mr. Bush to go to war without a fig-leaf of justification.

What you do in Bush's situation--( in a democratic country)--is mislead the electorate to they will OK their legislators' decision to support you. I suspect you may have heard this before.

That is exactly what Bush did. He admits now the intelligence on which he made the push to sell the invasion of Iraq was faulty --(try reading at least a few recent headlines, Teribus, if you read nothing else).

The only question remaining is whether he misled the US public intentionally or from incompetence.

By the way, for the record, I'm utterly convinced, despite Teribus' serious financial problems and the fact that he has been seen with known arsonists, that he is not guilty of arson in the burning of his house.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 11:30 PM

Yes, "Bad Intel", not "US sets up police station in Middle East to ensure USA has access to oil supplies / stabalise oil prices"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 11:46 PM

Ron Davies - 15 Dec 05 - 08:11 PM

"I don't think any sane person still asserts that WMD's were found in Iraq. Of course, that may or may not include Teribus."

Irrelevant Ron the object of the exercise after all was to establish beyond doubt that Iraq DID NOT possess any WMD, not to prove that they did - please read the UNSCOM Report of January 1999.

"I'd still, however, like Teribus to explain just what Cheney meant by his 8 Sept 2002 statement that since his clear statement-- on 16 Sept 2001-- that there was no evidence tying Saddam to 9-11, as of 8 Sept 2002 "new evidence has come to light"."

Previously explained Ron, take the trouble and go back and read it. New evidence had come to light, it was under evaluation and was unconfirmed, and the Vice-President clearly stated that, it was the subject of debate which was why the Vice-President of the United States of America was NOT going to comment on it, it was why the Vice-President of the United States of America was careful in the way he answered that question.

Now come along Ron, you seem to be fairly rational - Just answer my question - you have singularly avoided it so far - and believe me it is not going to go away, so you might as well go for it now.

Why did the President of the United States of America, with the aid of his entire Administration embark on a "Propaganda Campaign" to convince the people of the United States of America that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government had something to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001 after having clearly stated on numerous occasions that they had nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks.

That's the question Ron now please just bloody well answer it!!!

Now come on Ron that is the line of complete and utter twaddle you are hawking so come on explain your point of view without addressing me or my views - after all you believe this to be true, I have no part in it - So please just present your case.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 08:33 AM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 08:35 AM

Can't speak for Ron, but the answer is easy:

MID-TERM ELECTIONS!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 04:19 PM

Why did the President of the United States of America, with the aid of his entire Administration embark on a "Propaganda Campaign" to convince the people of the United States of America that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government had something to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001 after having clearly stated on numerous occasions that they had nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks.

"Objection -- nay, make that 'objections' -- your honour. Counsel is testifying, and 'asked and answered'".

Da judge: "Sustained".

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 05:35 PM

Just Google "WHIG", and you get all the info you need on the " 'Propaganda Campaign' to convince the people of the United States of America that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government had something to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001... "

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 09:14 PM

Ron Davies - 15 Dec 05 - 08:11 PM

"In fact, the "general populace" had to be convinced, lest they toss out their elected representatives at the first opportunity for voting to give authority to Mr. Bush to go to war without a fig-leaf of justification.

What you do in Bush's situation--( in a democratic country)--is mislead the electorate to they will OK their legislators' decision to support you. I suspect you may have heard this before."

Now the first opportunity would be the 2002 Mid-Term Elections in November 2002, in which the Republicans did very well. So take a look at the timeline:

January 2002 - State of the Union Address, President states clearly that there are two distinct objectives, the first being the terrorist organisations and rank and file themselves, the second being nations with governments, or regimes likely to sponsor, or give aid to those terrorist groups.

Late Spring/early Summer 2002 - The House Security Committee had already identified the countries/goverments/regimes that potentially posed a threat to the United States of America by means of possible support for terrorist organisations.

Summer 2002 - US go to the UN to force action on outstanding resolutions with regard to Iraq.

Late Summer 2002 - UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1441, "the last chance" resolution. Iraq invites UNSCOM inspection teams to return to Iraq.

November 2002 - Mid-Term Elections

From the above it already looks as though Iraq was already well positioned within the frame, there was no need to sell the electorate on that. I would imagine that the performance of the Republican Party in the 2002 mid-term elections had more to do with a vote of confidence in a President and an Administration who were demonstrating leadership and resolve, they had after all, by the time the electorate went to the polls, suceeded in:
- Removing the Taleban from power in Afghanistan;
- Driving Al-Qaeda from its training camps and put them very much on the defensive;
- Forcing the UN Security Council into taking action over Iraq (despite marked resistance from France, Russia, Germany and China);
- Getting weapons inspection teams invited back into Iraq.

It would appear that the "crowd" in office were doing their job and keeping the promises made earlier with regard to protecting the country from threat of attack.

That, Ron, was what Bush did during the period you think we should be so interested. Oh, by the way what the President admitted to the other day was with regard to faulty intelligence on which HE based HIS decision to invade Iraq - No mention at all about him having to push it to sell anything, that is your opinion of it.

The next opportunity would be the 2004 Elections, in which the Republicans again do rather well, not to mention the President himself, what was it again just over 62 million votes.

Your "Propaganda Campaign" is a myth, it is a fabrication hung on the coat hanger of the rational, logical and clearly described intended plan of action outlined in the 2002 SOU Address.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 09:38 PM

What you will not factor into the equation, T, is that everything that Bush or his folks said from 9/11 until the invasion was wrapped in 9/11 and flag waving...

Yes, there was a ceratibn amount of international sympathey that Bush spent like a drunkin' sailor... There wasn't one danged legilative proposal that didn't get the 9/ll brand burned into it's side, not one appointment that wasn't tied to fighting the terroristist who had attacked US on 9/11...

You seem to have a myopic view of the way things were in the mad-dash to invase Iraq...

Like maybe you'd like to explain how upwards of 80% of Americans can to think that Iraq (or Saddam) had something to do with the 9/11 attacks???

No, it is not longer sufficient for you to take the "actual" words and put them uner the T-Microsope... This is way beyond microscope stuff T-Stubborn.... Do you understand anything about PR and advertising??? If not, then this explains a lot as to why you continue to try to make that pair ot two's into a straight flush...

This ain't got one danged thing to do with UN resolutions... It's all about salesmanship and howe Bush sold an invasion to the American people... Yeah, you can camp out behing UN resolutions until the cows come home but when the day is done, your arguments are so contrary to what just about nay thinking person in the worlds are, that you look very much the fool...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 10:45 PM

Teribus--

Still waiting (with the patience of Job) for you to tell us why on 8 Sept 2002 Cheney felt compelled to say "new evidence has come to light--and then catalogue that "evidence".

According to your somewhat more than shaky theory, nothing had changed since 2001 on Bush's view of Saddam's culpability (look the word up)-- i.e. there was no link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001.

IF ALL CHENEY MEANT TO DO IN 2002 WAS TO REITERATE THAT SADDAM WAS BLAMELESS IN THE 11 SEPT 2001 ATTACKS, WHY MENTION "NEW EVIDENCE' THAT HAD "COME TO LIGHT" AT ALL?

"...after having clearly stated on numerous occasions that (Saddam) had nothing to do with those (11 Sept ) attacks..."

Where have you gone wrong?

Let me count the ways.

"clearly"--the only candidate for a clear statement you have submitted is the quote from 16 Sept 2001. You may want to learn how to read a calendar--most rational people would say that is before mid-2002, the start of the propaganda campaign in question.

"numerous"--uh, please cite just one of these "numerous occasions" between mid 2002 and March 2003. Your 8 Sept 2002 citation is a smoking wreck--sorry--it won't fly. Perhaps that says something about your aviation skills as well as your grasp of logic.

If Cheney's 8 Sept 2002 statement is an clear example of your above allegation, I'm the president of the US.

Please try another of the "numerous occasions".

In fact, even on 16 Sept 2001, Cheney did not say Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks--just that there was (at that point, 5 days afterward) no evidence linking Saddam to them--thus cleverly leaving the door open to more "evidence", which, mirabile dictu, somehow materialized by 8 Sept 2002.

As to why the US population needed to be convinced by the propaganda campaign, your ignorance of US politics is perhaps understandable (though no other UK Mudcatters seem to have a problem.)

Let's try to explain it to you yet again. As TIA states, mid-term elections are a factor in the US (as were Bush's hopes for the 2004 election). Since every member of the House of Representatives has to run for re-election every 2 years, they tend to be quite responsive to their constituents' strong feelings--so they would not sign on to an Iraq invasion unless they felt their constituents thought it necessary. Even Senators usually object to going to war without the suppport of their constituents.

Hence the necessity for Bush's propaganda campaign to push the Iraq invasion.

Are you beginning to understand?


Actually, a "civics" course wouldn't be necessary for you--all you really needed to do was open an encyclopedia.

I'm sorry the effort proved too much for you.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM

Ron, are you aware that you just posted post # 666 on this thread?

Kree-Gah!

Wait till the rightwing pundits get wind of that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 11:05 PM

Teribus--

What did you say was the answer to the question about Bush and the faulty intelligence?    Which was it?--did he mislead the US public through incompetence or intentionally?

Perhaps you enjoy it when the "leader" of your country misleads you into a war.

Some of us don't.



By the way, have you thanked the UN yet today for Bush's election? Don't forget to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 11:07 PM

LH--

You're right--in fact there was a huge crash of thunder at the time. Maybe I should be concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 02:42 AM

Be afraid, Ron, be very afraid.

However, rhetoric aside, no one has yet seen a WMD. Ergo cogito sum cum bono sunt ubi in retro alibius, or somethin' like that. (Don't waste yer time on Google. I just made that up.)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:22 AM

OK Ron,

Jan. 29, 2002- In Pres. George W. Bush's State of the Union speech, he identifies Iraq , along with Iran and North Korea , as an "axis of evil." He vows that the United States "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

May 14, 2002- The UN Security Council revamps the 11-year-old sanctions against Iraq , introducing a new set of procedures for processing contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment. At this time, the United States is preventing $5 billion of material from entering Iraq through "holds" by the sanctions committee.

Sept. 12, 2002- President Bush addresses the opening of the UN General Assembly, challenging the body to confront the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq ­ — or become irrelevant.

Sept. 17, 2002- President Bush releases his administration's National Security Strategy, outlining a more militarized policy relying on first strikes. It says the United States will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies." It emphasizes that the United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged, as it was during the Cold War.

Oct. 10, 2002- Congress adopts a joint resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq and gives the president authority to take pre-emptive, unilateral military action against Iraq , when and how he deems necessary.

Nov.7, 2002 - US Mid-Term elections

So almost one complete month before the elections, that worried GWB so much that prompt you to believe that he had to launch a "propaganda campaign" with regard to linking Iraq directly to 911, he had all the support and all the authority that he required.

The reference to "new evidence" that had come to light. This covers the differences between the known situation as of 16th September 2001 and 8th September 2002. From 28th October 2001 and well into the early summer of 2002 a series of reports of the alleged Atta/Al-Ani meeting appeared in the US media. Rumsfeld dismissed them in May 2002, the CIA and FBI were sceptical but still had the matter under investigation. What was Dick Cheney's take on it:
- He clearly indicates that it has not changed his mind, Iraq had nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911.
- Refers to Atta's apparent travel to Prague.
- Refers to reporting by others (i.e. non-US Agencies) that Atta was in Prague at the same time as Al-Ani. He later clearly states that these reports are unconfirmed.
- Draws attention to the fact that the matter is subject to debate.

By the bye, there is a six week gap that remains unaccounted for in the life of Atta, while supposedly in the US. The FBI doubt that Atta did go to Prague the April before the attacks. Their reason for coming to that conclusion rests on mobile phone records, cash/credit card transactions and car rental slips. The track record goes that subsequent to previous visits large sums of money were deposited in Atta's Florida account, $100,000 was credited to the account three days after the supposed meeting took place. The timing of the phone records, cash/credit card transactions would make it difficult (but not impossible) for Atta to have been in Prague at the alleged time. Records of calls made on a mobile phone only prove that the phone was used - it does not identify who used the phone. The same applies to cash/credit card transactions, particularly if they only cover cash dispenser withdrawals, the card has been used, it does not tell you who used it. Car rentals are equally anonymous, other people have rented cars on my behalf on hundreds of occasions, on a number of those occasions plans changed and the car was not used - but the record of the booking still stands.

Ron..."What did you say was the answer to the question about Bush and the faulty intelligence?    Which was it?--did he mislead the US public through incompetence or intentionally?"

President George W. Bush and members of his administration did not "sell", "push" or spin with regard to the information upon which he had to make his decision with regard to Iraq. Neither did Tony Blair, both leaders were given the joint assessments of their respective intelligence services based on the best information available at that time. It was on that information that decisions had to be made. Post 911 the option to contain Iraq was no longer tenable, sanctions could not be kept in place indefinitely and the evidence, available at the time indicated that those sanctions were being implemented more in the breach than in the observance. All indications were that Iraq under Saddam Hussein with sanctions removed and with all sixteen UN resolutions outstanding, would pose a threat. The President made the only decision he could, and it would not have mattered one jot who was sitting in the White House at the time, the decision would have been the same, because post-911, the person ultimately responsible for the safety and security of the United States of America, the person elected by the people of the United States of America to look after the best interests of the nation, just could not take that chance.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 11:35 AM

Are you getting paid by the word, Teribus? ;-)

What do you think will happen if you "win" this debate with several other people here? Will the World be somehow improved or saved from some dire fate?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 04:19 PM

"CHENEY: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

Joseph Goebels would have related to this form of false denial. The unspoken "but" at the end of the sentence would be clearly audible to about 80% of the audience, the other 20% being committed Nazis, who already believed in the message being implied.

Obviously Teribus is part of that 20%, and incapable of accepting that a huge number of Americans would have inferred a link between Iraq and 9/11, exactly as Cheney intended.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:16 PM

There's no way that T-Loser will "win" this debate, LH... T-Wrong is so utterly wrong that it is sad to see the poor fellow reloading and reloading the same lame arguments...

I mean, let's face it. For anyone to argue that the Bush PR War Machine didn't majke every attempt to tir the invasion of Iraq with 9/11... It seems that all the speeches that were given by Bush, CFheney and others had Iraq in the same paragraph with 9/11...

So tell me, LH... How can T-Lose "win" this argument??? It's allready a lost cause... Everyone knows it but T and maybe a couple of his Fox entertainment buddies...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Terry Allan Hall
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 06:02 PM

If Hussein had WMDs, he would've used them when we illegally invaded Iraq...obviously...do the Bu$$h apologists think he was just waiting for a more "festive" time?

OTOH,Richard Miniter's new book, "Disinformation", is most aptly named...it's been wondered before if he gets paid to lie on Bu$$hAdminInc's behalf, and how much he gets paid to do so...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 06:10 PM

BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLICANS by Phil Alexander

Mine Eyes have seen the bungling of that stumbling moron Bush;
he has blathered all the drivel that the neo-cons can push;
he has lost sight of all reason 'cause his head is up his tush;
The Doofus marches on.

I have heard him butcher syntax like a kindergarten fool;
There is warranted suspicion that he never went to school;
Should we fault him for the policies - or is he just their tool?
The lies keep piling on.

Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
His wreckage will live on.

I have seen him cut the taxes of the billionaires' lone heir;
As he spends another zillion on an aircraft carrier;
Let the smokestacks keep polluting - do we really need clean air?
The surplus is now gone.

Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Your safety net is gone!

Now he's got a mighty hankerin' to bomb a prostrate state;
Though the whole world knows its crazy - and the U.N. says to wait;
When he doesn't have the evidence, "We must prevaricate."
Diplomacy is done!

Oh, a trumped-up war is excellent; we have no moral bounds;
Should the reasons be disputed, we'll just make up other grounds;
Enraging several billions - to his brainlessness redounds;
The Doofus marches on!

Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
The Doofus marches on!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 09:07 PM

This is a recording.

Exactly how naive are you, Teribus?

On 8 Sept 2002 Cheney thought nothing had changed since 16 Sept 2001 when he had found no link betweeen Saddam and 11 Sept 2001?

So--why not say precisely that--and drop the subject--instead of the many-times cited catalogue of obvious possible links?

I'll give you a real deal on that bridge I was offering earlier--sounds like you're just about to write a check.

And your local library really needs to see you--about learning about propaganda--lest you come across here as a fool with a fragile ego. I'm sure we wouldn't want that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM

Terry Allan Hall - 17 Dec 05 - 06:02 PM

"If Hussein had WMDs, he would've used them when we illegally invaded Iraq...obviously...do the Bu$$h apologists think he was just waiting for a more "festive" time?"

I note the word "If" at the beginning of that sentence. OK Terry did he use them in 1991? We definitely knew he had them then, didn't we? Why did he not use them then? It may have something to do with the triggered response. While all the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American crowd are howling on about the US providing Saddam with WMD, they tend to forget that the UK and the US had renounced those weapons decades before. The USSR and it's Warsaw Pact allies did not. During the "Cold War" there was absolutely no secret made of the fact that if the USSR or any of it's Warsaw Pact allies used chemical or biological weapons the response from the west would be Tactical Nuclear. I believe that in 1991 Saddam was given the same message, that was why he did not use them.

Ron Davies - 17 Dec 05 - 09:07 PM

"Exactly how naive are you, Teribus?" A damn sight less than you Ron. Now go and play with the rest of the sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 09:56 PM

If, as I suspect, Teribus, you are in the UK, it's about 3 AM there now.

Go to bed.

Maybe you'll make more sense tomorrow.

I assure you, this debate will keep--you don't need to stay up for it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 10:07 PM

Oh, it's down to sheep???

Seems the only one left followin' the Bush PR machine is you, T-Sheep...

(Sooner 'er later, it all comes down to sheep...)

And, BTW, T-Amnesia, when did Saddam gas the Kurds and when did Rumsfeld give him all the gifts from the U.S.???

Just curious....

Yer runnin' outta time here, T-BeenReassigned, but I'd sho nuff like before Bush has you off wrestliong wid other folks fro you to answer some of the quaestion Ron and I have asked without the usual "Tropic of Cancer" lenght answers which tend not to be answers at all but the same old crap with a new package...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 01:03 AM

Terry Allen Hall:

it's been wondered before if he [Richard Miniter] gets paid to lie on Bu$$hAdminInc's behalf, and how much he gets paid to do so...

If he's not getting paid by the Dubya maladministration, he ought to sue. Seems that everyone else is getting paid under the table to write good things about the maladministration. Sounds like an "equal protection" violation to me (at least under the ground rules for "equal protection" claims set down by Rehnquist in Dubya v. Gore [lawyerly humour there, folks]....

As for Teribus, it's the SOS from him day after day. He's got be paid off by that maladministration as well; no one could be so obtuse (think Shawshank Redemption), so single-minded, and so patently dishonest -- and not be doing it professionally. I'd note that Teribus continues to ignore the points I made (and reiterated, and that now Ron Davies has also restated for some cases), and gives his far-off-Broadway one-man play spiel, pretending everyone else is his audience, over and over again.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 01:32 AM

Ron and Arne,

Your alarmist, conspiracy theory, take and explanation of things is irrational, illogical and flys in the face of what has actually been said and done. You should therefore not be too surprised that I find your arguements totally unconvincing.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 05:00 AM

from Dec 19 col. in Washington Post


"Can it be that trying to see the other guy's side simply takes too much of our time and energy? Sometimes I suspect that the desire to savage rather than convince an opponent stems from the nagging suspicion that just maybe we are on the wrong side of the logic. I mean, if you are convinced that your position is the correct one, why wouldn't you want to examine it and explain it in a way that might win a convert or two?"





I have noticed that Ron, Bobert, and Arne seem to always attack the PERSON they are argueing with, while Teribus seems to attack the "facts" that the other person brings up.


I wonder who has the stronger feeling that they are "right"?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 06:56 AM

Arne:

"so single-minded" describes you perfectly. Are you being paid by Al-Quaeda?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 08:51 AM

Yo, GUEST... You obviuosly haven't read this entire thread... Maybe you'd like to reread it and scome back and tell us who it was who firast called people who didn't agree with him, "FU*Ks"???

(Clue: It wasn't Ron, Arne or me...)

(2nd clue: His name begins with the letter "T" ans ends with the letter "s"...)

Don't hurt yer head to much on this little exercise...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 05:39 PM

Guest:

from Dec 19 col. in Washington Post

"Can it be that trying to see the other guy's side simply takes too much of our time and energy? Sometimes I suspect that the desire to savage rather than convince an opponent stems from the nagging suspicion that just maybe we are on the wrong side of the logic. I mean, if you are convinced that your position is the correct one, why wouldn't you want to examine it and explain it in a way that might win a convert or two?"

Ummm, we did that. Teribus ignored what we said, and continues the same ol' song and dance about how a reluctant Dubya had to be dragged into a war with Iraq because the public was all clamouring for it and the Democrats were howling for Saddam's head on a pike (really! Teribus is really trying to sell us these horsepotatoes...).   So now it's time to savage Teribus thoroughly, and call him all sorts of mean names. But, dear Guest, don't worry about widdle Teribus's feelings ... he doesn't listen to us, and even if he did, he lives in a parallel universe where the PNAC is the Peaceful Nuns Advancing Christianity, where Dubya is some wise but thoughtfully reflective reluctant to use big bombs in a campaign benightedly called "Tranquility and Inspiration", where 2150 dead U.S. soldiers and a heckuvalot more dead Iraqis -- as well as the assorted Bulgarians, Poles, Brits, and so on -- is a good thing, and where black is white and down is up ... so that we're actually singing the highest praises for Teribus here in a Dubyaish kind of way....

Hope you understand.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 06:14 PM

Guest:

I have noticed that Ron, Bobert, and Arne seem to always attack the PERSON they are argueing with, while Teribus seems to attack the "facts" that the other person brings up.

Ummm, can I help you out a bit here, "Guest"? You seem to have misspelled "ignore". As in: "Teribus ignores points brought up by others that totally demolish his little BizarroWorld idea that Dubya and his maladministration was just going with the flow in starting a war with Iraq, and never, ever tried to link Saddam to al Qaeda....." (BTW, I'm being charitable and assuming that "argueing" was just a typo....)

Arne:

"so single-minded" describes you perfectly. Are you being paid by Al-Quaeda?

Hmmmmmmm. Name-calling. Argumentum ad hominem. Seems I just read someone here complaining about that type of behaviour.... Who was that now; who was it that thought that casting aspersions on a person's habits, friends, and motivations, and ignoring the substance of the matter being discussed was such a terrible faux pas? Someone help me out here, name's on the tip of the tongue, but my mind's been a bit of swiss cheese lately: who was that masked man????

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 06:30 PM

All the aforementioned aside, they STILL haven't found any WMDs.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 07:59 PM

"Can it be that trying to see the other guy's side simply takes too much of our time and energy?"

LOL! Definitely. Look at any political (or other) debate for numerous glaring examples of that principle in action.

People would always rather be "right" than be evenhanded or happy or forgiving or at peace with one another. And because of that...the arms business remains highly profitable.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:26 PM

LittleHawk:

I don't mind looking at the other side. What I have problems with is discussing hallucinations that I'm fortunately not privy to, and lies and misquotes. If the "other side" could take a moment to find some honesty deep within themselves, and actually discuss what happened, I'd be up for it.

Sorry to be such a pedant, but I do think that we shouldn't let people keep "spinning" the same ol' horsepotatotes (I noted that the RW Mighty Wurlitzer [in the form of the Sean Hannity radio show this instance] was busy peddling the "This is all Clinton's doing, it was his fault really -- even though we did the right thing and there is no fault -- because Dubya, resolute and strong, just followed that weak-livered draft-dodging cheese-eating coward's lead..."). As long as the RW noise machine is peddling this c***, I'll keep pointing it out for the malarkey it is, and bury their friggin' noses in the sanguinary mess they've made of Iraq and the two thousand more U.S. citizens' corpses that they celebrate as the harbinger of the dawning of a New Age Of Enlightenment, Peace, And Prosperity..... People like Teribus are my eternal and mortal enemies. They are no joke. They are to be resisted and opposed with every waking breath, by anyone who has a shred of humanity.

Hope that makes my feelings here clear.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM

Oh, I understand that, Arne. Just can't help philosophizing from time to time about the human condition, that's all...

I am as opposed to their idiotic War Against Terrorism (WAT?????) as you are. It's a self-negating premise. War IS terrorism, and this one was planned quite awhile before 911. 911 was more than convenient for its planners...almost like...a gift from...God? Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:13 PM

Exactly right, both Arne and LH....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:17 PM

And they still haven't found any WMDs. That's what whoozit started this thread about.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM

Teribus--

So our allegations of a propaganda campaign by the Bush regime are just conspiracy theory?

In that case, it should be no problem for you to come up with a quote by the Bush "team"-- during the mid-2002 to March 2003 period--which clearly states that Saddam had nothing to do with 11 Sept 2001.

Sorry--anything that mentions "new evidence has come to light"--then catalogues that "evidence" of possible connections between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001--is not eligible as a clear statement.

I wonder why. Do you think you can figure out why that is not a clear statement of disassociation? Have you visited your local library yet?

About a month after being asked for such a statement, you have yet to come up with even one. It doesn't help your case.

As far as your litany of political events in 2002 in the US, one small problem.

It's meaningless.

Do you know what happens after the midterm elections?

Since you need some instruction, I'll help you.

What happens is getting ready for the 2004 elections.

It never stops.

So politicians realize they'd best have their constituents' OK if the plan is to, say, start a war.

That's why the propaganda campaign, which was in fact brilliantly successful--Herr Goebbels would have been proud---was necessary for Bush.

As I've said before, it certainly is ironic that you got caught in this. All you had to do was pick a better issue.

Just how tender is your ego?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 11:45 PM

Ouch....

You gonna take that, T... Hey, bad 'nuff being wrong but now this!?!?!?!?!....

I tolt you not to defend this position but you went ahead and now there's not one person left in Mudville who believes anything you say, 'cept the usual cast of blindmen...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:18 AM

Tbus:

You can argue with these idiots for the rest of your life and they will still read things to suit their mindset. If someone mentions two words in the same sentence they can ignore everything else and say "that is what he meant".

That is the great ability of liberals to support their retarded notions about the real world. That is why the Dems are loosing seats in the government. They are out of touch with reality. They even think they are in the majority.

Just let them keep thinking they are superior beings. They will soon be extinct like the Dodo bird.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:42 AM

Ron Davies - 19 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM

"In that case, it should be no problem for you to come up with a quote by the Bush "team"-- during the mid-2002 to March 2003 period--which clearly states that Saddam had nothing to do with 11 Sept 2001."

Provided by myself ages ago down this thread:

"From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:

Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."
   
Russert then asked on the 2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

Now all that was broadcast on 8th September 2002. It doesn't matter what Dick Cheney says after that sentence - he has answered Russert's question. You can twist and deny all you want but in that transcript of that programme two times the Vice-President clearly states that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

Like Bobert and his supposedly ignored question regarding the "off-ing" of Saddam Hussein ("After all Dan Rather got to within four feet of him") - Bobert's question has been answered on numerous occasions, but Bobert just does not like the answer, so he ignores it, pretends he hasn't been answered - that doesn't alter the fact that he has - Ron you got the example you wanted ages ago, why deny it.

Now Ron give us one quote where any member of the Bush Administration clearly states that Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 within the period you stipulated and also tell us why this was done after them having clearly and consistantly denied that any such connection existed.

"Ron - About a month after being asked for such a statement, you have yet to come up with even one. It doesn't help your case."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:00 PM

Geoduck:

[To Teribus]: You can argue with these idiots for the rest of your life and they will still read things to suit their mindset. If someone mentions two words in the same sentence they can ignore everything else and say "that is what he meant".

I notice you shut up and went away pretty quickly after my last two posts in reply to you concerning Cheney's repeated claims about an Atta/Iraqi agent meeting. Care to respond now to those now, or are you going to emulate Teribus here and pretend I never said anything in reply and didn't blow your little attempt at obfuscation concerning the Dubya maladministration's little propaganda campaign right out of the water?

You can pretend that you're 'winning' the 'discussion' here all you want, but deep in your heart you know that you're being as dishonest as the day is long. What I'd like to know, Geoduck, is why??? Why do you think it important to engage in dishonest defence of the maladministration here (when even Dubya seems to be admitting some "mistakes" nowadays [but nothing that he's responsible for])? Why not argue (as Dubya seems to be doing) that even with the bad 'intelligence' (which Cheney and his WHIG cooked up and then pushed as hard as they could), that the Iraq war (and the $1/4 trillion price tag and the 2150+ soldiers dead) was nonetheless a good thing? Why not just a simple 'the ends justify the means' argument? It seems to be Dubya's tack currently, surely that can't be wrong?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:32 PM

And Teribus repeats for the zillionth time the same old tired (and useless) quotes ... carefully snipping (note this, Geoduck) the rest of what Cheney said. And what else did Cheney say right after that???

From your own post, Teribus:

On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, MOHAMED ATTA, WHO WAS THE LEAD HIJACKER, DID APPARENTLY TRAVEL TO PRAGUE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. AND ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, WE HAVE REPORTING THAT PLACES HIM IN PRAGUE WITH A SENIOR IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."

And Teribus has the chutzpah to accuse us of snipping and selective quoting.....

Teribus hangs on deperately to a slender thread (and admits that he really doesn't give a damn about context, which he and Geoduck assert is important elsewhere): Now all that was broadcast on 8th September 2002. It doesn't matter what Dick Cheney says after that sentence - he has answered Russert's question.

And this remaining stuff is also in direct response to Russert's question; no intervening comment by Russert, no change of subject. But since it doesn't fit the snowjob that Teribus is trying to foist off, he ignores it. Head in the sand ... or more accurately, deliberate dishonesty on Teribus's part, seeing as Teribus knows full well what Cheney said but refuses to acknowledge it. But what of the selectively curtainled answer that Teribus is wont to cite: "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

Yeah, and I don't mean to make a specific allegation that Teribus is an axe-murdering pederast, I can't say that, but.....

As we've pointed out too many times, Cheney doesn't deny a d*** thing here; he just refuses to make any "specific allegation". Teribus is hard of understanding, though. Or dishonest. Probably the latter, but I don't want to make a specific allegation.

Last time I'm pointing this out. Let's talk calendars....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM

Arne,

It really is quite simple on the 8th September 2002, Vice-President Dick Cheney was asked if he still believed that Saddam/Iraq had nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. On the 8th September 2002, he stated that he could not say that there was any link.

As I have said and will keep on saying it you can keep on trying to muddy the waters as much as you like, you cannot alter what the Vice-President said.

You omit to highlight:
- "reporting that suggests" - I know Arne would take that as rock solid fact as he believes everything that is reported as long as it emanates from one of his approved media outlets. But to me Arne that indicates that that the V-P certainly hadn't bought it, thereby reinforcing his earlier comment on it not being possible to say that any link existed between Iraq and 911.

- "The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there" - What debate do you think he is talking about Arne? Clearly he is not trying to push the line that there was a meeting and that there was a link between iraq and 911. In fact he is pouring cold water on the idea all through the interview.

You also omit to mention that the Vice-President clearly stated that all those reports were UNCONFIRMED.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:34 PM

Well, all I really want to know is why such a high percentage of Americans thought that Saddam had ties to Al-Qeada right around the time of the invasion??? Did they all dream it up???

I don't think it really matters the exact wording of speeches the Bush PR War Machine wrote for their guys (and gal) but what was inferred... I mean, like all we heard were references to 9/11 in the selling of the war... The referneces in themselves and the oversellng of knowingly questionable intellegence, irregarless of the wording, is what should be the heart of this debate...

And from what I witnessed, read and heard during those days I find it credulous that anyone would stand here and deny that the angers and fears left by 9/11 weren't used in creating a mindset within the masses that defeating Saddam would be a step in the war on terrorism...

Now, if that ain't linkin' the two then nuthin' is... T and his little gang can continue to deny this but they know in their heart of hearts that they are furtherin' an argument that does doesn't do juustice to the way things actually were... Why they think thay can do this is beyond me other than they just don't want to give up the ship... Fine, the ship has been under water for some time now...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:36 PM

Geoduck,

You are the dumbest f##k to grace this place in years. Even yer President says no WMDs were found. Both yer eyes on the same side of yer nose?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:55 PM

comic insights

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:41 PM

Freda:

Try this one.   ;-)

BTW, there's lots more fine stuff from Tom Tomorrow there (chech the "archive" link). Go give it a peruse, all you folks, over the holidays. Plenty to give you a hearty chuckle!

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:08 PM

Teribus--

So-- you're still drawing from the same well of certified 100% pure drivel, I note.


"It doesn't matter"?--- what Dick Cheney said on 8 Sept 2002 after "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I 'm not here to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that". Doesn't matter?

MInd explaining why it doesn't matter what he said afterward?

Allow me to humbly suggest that "it doesn't matter" is hogwash. We wouldn't have expected anything different from you.

It matters a lot--in fact what he said afterward undercut--badly--your supposed "clear statement". As you well know.

Upshot: you still, almost a month later, have no statement made by the Bush regime disassociating Saddam and 11 Sept 2001.

And there's a good reason--such a statement doesn't exist.

In fact what Cheney said on 8 Sept 2002, if you read the whole statement, supports rather than disproves the propaganda campaign allegation.

Were it not for your ego, you would admit this--I'm convinced you're nowhere near as stupid as you profess to be.



We, however, have cited many statements by the Bush "team" to illustrate the propaganda campaign.

And, as I somehow suspect you know, propaganda does not need a direct statement to be effective--as illustrated by our scenarios painting you as a possible idiot and two other even worse options . We never did accuse you of any of that--in fact we made sure to deny that we believed in any of it-- since it's all a complete fabrication--but somehow I suspect that is not very comforting.

That's how propaganda can work--and it's just possible that you know that--and you know that Cheney also knows it.



But congratulations on managing to keep your temper for several weeks now. I'm sure it's a struggle.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:17 PM

Teribus--

On the off-chance I have to spell this out to you yet again, for the n th time we are talking about the period between mid 2002 and March 2003. That is the period of the propaganda campaign--and therefore the period of your assignment to find a statement by the Bush "team" disassociating Saddam and 11 Sept 2001.

Your results so far have been pitiful.

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM

Ron,

Likewise, for the nth time, you asked for one example, you got one dated 8 Sept 2002 (Which falls within the period stipulated at random by yourself)

When asked if he still held the view that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 911 Dick Cheney replied:

"Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that".

Please point out where in the transcript of what followed does he change his mind about what is said above and what he said one year before. There is nothing - that is why what he said after did not matter - nowhere does he indicate that the links with Al-Qaeda or the reported visits of Atta to Prague prompt him to alter his view - he actually gives a reason why such reports would not alter his opinion because all such reports were unconfirmed.

So he was "inferring" things was he. How? by making statements mentioning Saddam/Iraq/Al-Qaeda and 911 in the same sentence or paragraph? Well I think if you investigate the speeches, reports, broadcasts and interview transcripts of the period from 911 to March 2003 you will finds thousands of others who were equally guilty. What you will not find so numerous are statements that match the US Administrations clear statements that Iraq had no part in the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001, the first of those being delivered within days of that event occuring.

I am making my judgement on what the man said - you are making yours on what you think he was "inferring", or worse still by what you have been told he was inferring by someone else, your acceptance of that opinion being the result of your own political prejudice. In all probability you view is a combination of both.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:37 PM

Why not add some music to the thread?

Reading Teribus, and my thoughts above, brings back to mind a song I played, perhaps not enough, when I had my radio show back in Connecticut, this song from Peggy Seeger.

I don't expect Teribus to understand it, much less appreciate it, but I recommend it to any other Catters here.

Happy holidays!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:12 PM

Arne:

I notice you shut up and went away pretty quickly after my last two posts in reply to you concerning Cheney's repeated claims about an Atta/Iraqi agent meeting. Care to respond now to those now, or are you going to emulate Teribus here and pretend I never said anything in reply and didn't blow your little attempt at obfuscation concerning the Dubya maladministration's little propaganda campaign right out of the water?

I still see no quotes by anyone in the Bush administration stating Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Cheney did not say "Atta" met He said, as per your posting "WE HAVE REPORTING" He said atta "did apparently travel to Prague" are you saying Atta did not travel to Prague?

Peacenik: What does your president say?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:52 PM

You still don't get it, quack...

The mad-dash to war was well wriiten by Bush's War Machine... Yeah, they used sample audiences who were eired for responses... They went over the script's woor for word... Accent by accent in hopes of acpitalizing on the spikes in folks responses... This wasn't baout facts or lioes but condition responses and stuff the ad-nman know all about....

In bringing up 9/11 with just about every new sales pitrch the ad-men knew tghat eventually the connection would happen in the mionds of those who listened and it did... Right after the invasion about 70% of Americans thought that Saddam had Al Qeada connections...

Hmmmmmm???

Did thes 70% of Americans drean this up???

Well, no they didn't... They had been part of a propaganda control experiement and it's no wonder that at the end of it they had this disctinct impression that Saddam and bin Laden were in coohoots,,,,

This id wghat out tax dollars were spent to produce and they produced it...

Don'tr make any part of it fact but, heym facts are for the losers.... Right???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:58 PM

"Peacenic"? You say that like it's bad. (grin) Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the Peacemakers"? (He wasn't talking about the Boeing B-36 Peacemaker bomber either!)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM

Yeah, blessed are the peacemakers....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:10 PM

There is nothing to get from you Bobert. The little strips of paper in fortune cookies carry more gravitas that your incoherent fact devoid ramblings.

Tookie had more sincerity than you do. Dan Rather's National Guard Expose was more factual that your flatulence.

Peacenik sounds high as a kite on weed.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 12:32 AM

Geoduck:

I still see no quotes by anyone in the Bush administration stating Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Cheney did not say "Atta" met He said, as per your posting "WE HAVE REPORTING" He said atta "did apparently travel to Prague" are you saying Atta did not travel to Prague?

Yeah, there's those ones (which you snipped the rest of, for some unfathomable reason which is suspected to have somthing to do with the fact that Cheney was talking about Atta meeting an Iraqi agent in them), which pretty much say what I said Cheney said ... and there's also this one:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that--it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Which I posted above (along with a link). Which you conveniently ignored. How many quotes do you friggin' need before you throw in the towel, eh? Terminally lame, Geoduck, to keep flogging the SOS you're floggin here....

You know, Geoduck, maybe it is you that would be best "high as a kite on weed". That might be an exculpatory excuse for your being such a blithering eedjit here.... Is it true, Geoduck? Do you get lit up before you post here? Maybe we can cut you some slack....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 03:57 AM

Come on then Arne in your post 12:32AM 22 Dec 05 - why did you not quote the full transcript of the conversation including the date and the question asked:

Now this is what Arne and Mr. Olbermann would like all the anti-Bush sheep to believe what the Administration was stating as fact:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that--it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now take a look at the date and the question the Vice-President was responding to and more importantly what he did actually say:

From the December 9, 2001 Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: "Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: 'The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.' And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: 'We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses -- three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it -- a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.' And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck -- and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
   
CHENEY: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was THAT REPORT THAT -- IT'S BEEN PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED THAT HE DID GO TO PRAGUE AND HE DID MEET WITH A SENIOR OFFICIAL OF THE IRAQI INTELLIGENCE SERVICE in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

Point 1
Oh Dear the date of the "statement" and its transmission is before Ron Davies randomly self-selected period for the "Propaganda Campaign that never was"

Point 2
Russert establishes Cheney's view of 16th September (Iraq had nothing to do with 911) then asks the V-P for his reaction to two articles that have subsequently come to light.
- The first being the first regarding the Atta/Iraqi Security Official apparently coming from the Czech Interior Ministry
- The second relating to training based at Salman Pak

Point 3
Although Arne is adept at highlighting sections of text his ability when it comes to basic english comprehension are rather faulty. The one part of what the Vice-President says that stands out like a ball on a billiard table is:
"THAT REPORT THAT -- It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior Official of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."
Arne he is stating what the subject matter of the report was not what he, or anyone else in the Bush Administration, believed to be the case.

Point 4
Having established what the report sourced from the Czech Interior Ministry claimed (i.e. Arne/Olbermann's quote) you get what Dick Cheney's reaction to that report (i.e. the second sentence that Arne/olbermann conveniently omit):
"Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

Point 5
The final part of Russert's question:
"Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
The second sentence quoted by me in point 4 above answers that. On 16th September Cheney stated that Iraq was not involved. On the 9th December, with the recently introduced reports relating to the Atta/Prague meeting and the training facilities at Salman Pak still under evaluation, Cheney clearly states that he does not know but that it is something that is being investigated.

Point 6
Where in that entire "Meet the Press" exchange/conversation does the Vice-President state, hint, infer that Iraq had something to do with 911.   

Sorry Arne, it simply does not wash, your continued use of selectively misleading soundbite clips to support your extremely shakey, unsupported opinions is not very effective.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:47 AM

Bobert - 21 Dec 05 - 10:52 PM

As to why some of us..."still don't get it,"

According to Bobert:
"Bush's War Machine...used sample audiences who were eired (hired?) for responses"

CAUTION - THIS IS A BOBERT FACT

Definition of a BOBERT FACT - something that has been pulled out of thin air, a statement made with absolutely no substantiation.

Note on BOBERT FACTS - in any ensuing reply Bobert will not provide evidence to substantiate his case, instead he will rant on about T-something this, T-something that, Quack-this, Quack-that. The one thing you will not get is rational arguement, because the man is incapable of it.


"Bush's War Machine...went over the script's woor (word?) for word"

CAUTION - THIS IS ANOTHER BOBERT FACT.

"Bush's War Machine... Accent by accent in hopes of acpitalizing (capitalizing?) on the spikes in folks responses"

CAUTION - THIS IS ANOTHER BOBERT FACT.

"... This wasn't baout facts or lioes but condition responses and stuff the ad-nman know all about...."

Well Bobert this post of yours certainly isn't based on facts, it is based largely on lies and you are the one telling them, or attempting to present them as fact.

"In bringing up 9/11 with just about every new sales pitrch the ad-men knew tghat eventually the connection would happen in the mionds of those who listened and it did... Right after the invasion about 70% of Americans thought that Saddam had Al Qeada connections..."

Hmmmmmm??? Not making much sense there Bobert. The media brought up 911 with every sales pitch from what I can see, the media having editorial control created the sound bites that were continually broadcast, both of those contentions can be clearly demonstrated and substantiated. If 70% of Americans thought that Saddam/Iraq had connections with Al-Qaeda "right after the invasion", then 70% of Americans plus their Government would be right, those links, contacts and connections dated back to 1994. What the US Administration ALWAYS stated was that Saddam/Iraq had NOTHING to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. The media continually tempted them into stating that there was such a connection, and when they could not be drawn, the media resorted to carefully edited sound bites.

Bobert, you, Ron and Arne should write a book:

"The Propaganda Campaign That Never Was - June 2002 to March 2003"

I would look forward to it being published only half as much as reading the lambasting it would get by historians and political observers in review.

Facts aren't for losers Bobert, when looked at from all angles and all perspectives they provide extremely good indicators to the truth of any situation. I would advise that you start looking to fact rather than emotion if you actually want to put a point across.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:33 AM

Teribus:

What exactly was the purpose of the WHIG? Come on now, do just a teeny bit of research, and tell us. Maybe you could find some statments by the actual members concerning their purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:52 AM

Teribus--

Well, it looks like it's down to thee and me--and soon it'll be just thee.

Look on the bright side--at least you'll finally have somebody- who believes all the unmitigated drivel with which you've been honoring us---yourself.

Enjoy your soliloquy.





Never thought I'd have to explain to you, of all people---who fancies himself an expert on military strategy and geopolitics------so much for that------- how propaganda works.

Had to explain it over and over again---and still you don't understand.

Before you go criticizing Bobert, Arne or me--PLEASE visit your library.

And I took you for an educated person. I won't make that mistake again.



For the n plus 1th time, propaganda does not need a direct statement to be effective.

One among many examples from the Bush propaganda campaign:

From the 2003 State of the Union address:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".


If you don't think that's propaganda--and very effective propaganda, directed as it was at a US population already on edge after 9-11 --(remember the US had not been living with the direct threat of terrorism for decades, as had the UK)---you need to make that library trip in the worst way.

First try your encyclopedia--you do know what that is, don't you? --look under under P for propaganda.

And that bridge I have for you has your name right on it--in 14 carat lead, just for you.


"Well, I want to be careful about..." (recognize that?)


Fine--as I believe I've also mentioned before--if Cheney had not changed his mind between 16 Sept 2001 and 8 Sept 2002 about the link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001, the proper answer to Russert's question as whether he had changed his mind on that issue was "No, sir".

That should have been the end of the topic.

You've still refused to answer why Cheney said ANYTHING else on the topic on 8 Sept 2002.

Far from dropping the topic, Cheney instead went on with "On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light" and then detailed that "evidence", while maintaining deniability.

Ever heard the term "deniability"? You can go to your dictionary for that one.

Don't worry, we'll educate you yet.

Deniability is very useful for propagandists.

Cheney is an expert propagandist.


Hope I'm not going too fast for you to follow.


But somehow, I think you just might understand. I suspect you're a good propagandist yourself--though your recent efforts have been unbelievably clumsy.


It's only your ego that prevents you from acknowledging the propaganda campaign carried out by the Bush regime to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001--a campaign which was-----all together now-----from mid-2002 to March 2003.

So, yet again your citation of the statement "within days" of 9-11 is, like everything else you have contributed to the discussion, totally worthless.

You are truly pathetic.

And possibly a fool--that's my chosen 4-letter word----in contrast to yours, say on 3 Dec 2005, to pick a purely theoretical occasion.


But congratulations on no vulgar outbursts since 3 Dec.

Well done. Good job.


My "political prejudice" (registered Republican that I am) in seeing a propaganda campaign by the Bush "team" between mid 2002 and March 2003. is called thinking.

Too bad it's a foreign concept for you.






However, you may have heard the term Truce of God, which was sometimes invoked between combatants long ago. One of the times was around Christmas. I think it's time to invoke that wonderful custom now. I have better things to do these days than to to try to make the horse drink. After all, you've been staring at the lake for about a month now, and still haven't realized that it's water.

So---this is my last post on this topic---til after Christmas.


But, after that, I'll be back rubbing your face in what you've done (another metaphor)--til you realize it.



Merry Christmas to all!!!!--yes ,even you, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:02 AM

Ron, I too thought I was an intelligent person, on certain given days.
But I also fell for the entire 9-11 scenario and the call to war as presented by the US goverment and prime time Billy Graham song and dancers... for nearly a month.

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

(now its your turn George)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Rekset
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM

Very witty comebacks - very entertaining. As I expected.

Let's get down to brass tacks here -

Does anyone here, left or right, honestly think Saddam Hussein wouldn't have used NBC on us?

Does anyone here believe that he DID NOT have NBC in the past?

Does anyone here think SADDAM HUSSEIN would give up the power to use WMD, a power he'd exercised in the past?

Do you really think that a few investigators couldn't be fooled? Or that Hussein didn't have more than enough time to move stockpiles to Syria?

If so, I suppose you believe Iran is pursuing Nuclear energy for strictly peaceful reasons.

I'm sure I will get some very humorous and enthusiastic answers - no one seems to want to start with a QUESTION. People so often start with the answer and limit their logic and fact-gathering to what fits.

Try to understand that an intense desire to feel safe does not mean we are safe. If we are not safe, the WOT is a hell of a lot more important than your personal dislike for the Pres, or even your political ideology. Think practically!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:26 PM

Rekset,

You are NOT allowed to bring up points like that! ONLY that which SUPPORTS the viewpoint some here have, that Bush is evil, and responsible for all evil in the world, and has no reason for what he does, is allowed to be presented. Facts are not a part, nor are any references to reality.


But Happy holidays to all, and may we drink a toast to Peace, regardless of how one feels that may be best obtained.


Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:04 PM

NBC? I thought it was CBS that Saddam had gained control over... ;-)

Safe? We will NEVER be safe. Life isn't safe. More wars and more weapons won't make it safe. Get used to it, and stop terrorizing other people in small countries because YOU don't feel safe.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:15 PM

September 27, 2010: While the United States searches valiantly for WMDs in Iraq . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:55 PM

>>FACT - The President of the United States of America does NOT need the sanction of ANYBODY to act in, what he and his administration believe to be, the best interests of the United States of America - End of story.<<

FACT - This applies to anybody and everybody on planet earth. What is your point or do you actually have one?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:32 PM

Nice attack, T-Attack!!!

Had lots of CAPITAL LETTERS in in so we're all sure that it had to be the truth...

Okay, it's time again to take Bobert Quiz...

You ready?

Good...

Here's the question: Did the Bush administration hire any PR firms to help them sell the invasion of Iraq?

Yes __________

No____________

I've finally figured out why you like Bush so much... He;s just like you... Full of proclaimations and short on substance...

Yeah, you and the Quackster all ready at a moments notuice to pounce with proclamations but, hey, do you have knowledge that the Bush folks didn't use any independent PR firms???

Opps... Don't want to mess you up while yer contimplating the above quiz... Hey, if you guess you have half a chance of being correct which is a lot better than yer doing with Ron...

As fir you, Duck. You arer just a tad too pathetic to even discuss anything... You only know attack the messenger... Kinda a one trick duck...

Quack, quack...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 07:04 PM

>>Does anyone here, left or right, honestly think Saddam Hussein wouldn't have used NBC on us?<<

I don't know. Maybe.

>>Does anyone here believe that he DID NOT have NBC in the past?<<

Sure he did. He used it on the Kurds and we gave it to him. Ah, how soon they forget.

>>Does anyone here think SADDAM HUSSEIN would give up the power to use WMD, a power he'd exercised in the past?<<

When the US gives him the weapon, I'm pretty sure he would think it okay to use it or why did we give it to him? But that's his fault not ours, I know.

>>Do you really think that a few investigators couldn't be fooled?<<

Yeah, there's just so much of that bad intelligence floating around these days. It could fool anybody.

>>Or that Hussein didn't have more than enough time to move stockpiles to Syria?<<

Now that I seriously doubt. Moreover, not even Bush tried to use that one to justify his mistake. Of course, we can always invade Syria and prove the WMDs are hidden there. I'm sure we'd be right this time.

>>If so, I suppose you believe Iran is pursuing Nuclear energy for strictly peaceful reasons.<<

Doesn't make any difference what Iran is doing it for? We have nukes and we are still the only nation ever to use them on people--on women and children. If we can do it, who are we to tell others they can't? OH, because we're morally superior to everyone else. Silly me.

>>I'm sure I will get some very humorous and enthusiastic answers - no one seems to want to start with a QUESTION. People so often start with the answer and limit their logic and fact-gathering to what fits.<<

Were these questions supposed to unleash some amazing, undeniable truth on us about something?

>>Try to understand that an intense desire to feel safe does not mean we are safe. If we are not safe, the WOT is a hell of a lot more important than your personal dislike for the Pres, or even your political ideology. Think practically!<<

Justifying invading another nation in a war we now can't get out of and for which we have become the laughingstock of the world is your way of thinking logically? Is it logical to kill somebody you think might want to kill you? Tell it to the judge, I'm sure he'll find your logical compelling. Mr. Spock, you ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 07:14 PM

But...how can we feel SAFE if we aren't allowed to invade and kill everyone we're afraid might someday attack us?    (hysterical laughter)

There are a lotta places left to invade before I am gonna feel safe, lemme tell ya. And I ain't just talkin' Muslim places either. You can't really trust anyone who doesn't speak English, for a start. That's a given. Because...you can't understand what they're saying, and that could mean they're saying they hate you and want to kill you, couldn't it?

Like I say, lotta places left to invade yet. We are hated out there. Just hated. I know it's hard to believe, but we are. We have to take the bastards out before they take us out, and that will take guts, determination, and will. Just ask GW. He knows when to lead and how. He is not a quitter and neither am I. Kill 'em all, I say, until you and I can wake up feeling safe.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 07:41 PM

Oh, geeze, GUEST... Don't go writin' stuff like that... You know the NSA is monitorin' this joint an' yer last post surely ain't one that needs to be printed off and sent to Bush at Christmas... He's have the Joint Chiefs on the phone tonight....

And, GUEST AR282... Maybe you'd like to shed some light on the itme line between when Saddam "gassed the Kurds" and when Don Runsfeld presented Saddam with a bunch of preswents form the US governemnt???

Ahhhh, maybe you'd like to also make mention of who was president when these gifts were bestowed upon Saddam???

Oh, nevermind those facts...

The Duck will come along an' accuse me of ranting... Oh, that would be bad... Real bad...

Awwwww, heck with him... He's a friggin' duck... Make a better Christmas dinner...

Go ahead and reveal taht time ine if you'd like...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:24 PM

FIRST:
GUEST,TIA - 22 Dec 05 - 09:33 AM

"Teribus:

What exactly was the purpose of the WHIG? Come on now, do just a teeny bit of research, and tell us. Maybe you could find some statments by the actual members concerning their purpose."

Why TIA can't you tell us? I've got a feeling that you are going to so might as well do it now. You might find some reasoning behind it's conception in the pre-emption of the findings of the 911 committee with regard to oversight of intelligence material from different sources.

SECOND:
Ron Davies - extremely well spaced post of 22 Dec 05 - 09:52 AM

The first six inches says absolutely nothing.

Now for the nth + 1 time Ron comes up with this:
"One among many examples from the Bush propaganda campaign:

From the 2003 State of the Union address:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".

What did he say in the 2002 State of the Union Address Ron? Or does that just get thrown out as time expired? Sorry, no it does not, it is still relevant - Remember first objective the terrorist groups themselves, Second the regimes likely to provide those groups with technical or material support. Ron do try and keep up and please try to be at least aware of the bigger picture than your antipathy towards your elected head of state.

As for this from Ron:
"if Cheney had not changed his mind between 16 Sept 2001 and 8 Sept 2002 about the link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001, the proper answer to Russert's question as whether he had changed his mind on that issue was "No, sir".

Now you see Ron, Arne and Co., only use the sound bites the media (i.e. the media they approve of) provide them with, not the transcripts of the complete interview. I'm not going to paste them again they are readily available by scrolling down this thread. What was the question he was asked Ron? and what had occured in between answers given in previous interviews?

Also from Ron:

"Cheney is an expert propagandist."

That your opinion Ron? Can you substantiate it? I believe, having read through the man's CV his expertise lies in a completely different area of human endeavour. But what the hell Ron you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, irrespective of how wrong it is, just please don't try to present it as being fact - IT'S NOT, it's just Ron's opinion.

Next from Ron:
"It's only your ego that prevents you from acknowledging the propaganda campaign carried out by the Bush regime to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001--a campaign which was-----all together now-----from mid-2002 to March 2003.

So, yet again your citation of the statement "within days" of 9-11 is, like everything else you have contributed to the discussion, totally worthless.

You are truly pathetic."

Having been repeatedly asked to provide an example of this propaganda campaign (that never was), Ron and his anti-Bush cohorts cannot come up with a single instance that is not some sound bite, suitably edited by the media (as approved by Ron & Co.). No mate, you are the one that is proving himself to be totally pathetic. Oh I think he "inferred this", Oh I think he "inferred that" does not quite match up to, well this was the question asked, this is what the man actually answered, hence this was the answer to that question.

It would appear that Ron has gone over to BOBERT FACTS a reprise of which is given below, just substitute RON for BOBERT:
Definition of a BOBERT FACT - something that has been pulled out of thin air, a statement made with absolutely no substantiation.

Note on BOBERT FACTS - in any ensuing reply Bobert will not provide evidence to substantiate his case, instead he will rant on about T-something this, T-something that, Quack-this, Quack-that. The one thing you will not get is rational arguement, because the man is incapable of it.

Your post Ron does not address a single issue, carry on with your personal attacks. After all Bobert told us all exactly what those signify. As someone else reading this thread commented you, Arne and Bobert tend to attack the person, I tend to challenge the content of what a person says.

THIRD:
GUEST,Rekset - 22 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM

Good post, which I see remains unanswered, whatever you do please don't hold your breath waiting, your questions are far too direct to get a response from most posting to this forum.

But in response to your first point:
"Does anyone here, left or right, honestly think Saddam Hussein wouldn't have used NBC on us?"

This verse of that song of Peggy Seeger's that Arne wishes he'd played more seems to be rather apt:

"Every day another vulture takes flight
There's another danger born every morning
In the darkness of your blindness the beast will learn to bite
How can you fight if you can't recognise a warning?"

Fortunately for the citizens of the USA and for the rest of the world, post-911 the US President and his Administration have not been blind, they have assessed and evaluated the threat, and not being blind, they have acted and heeded the warnings.

FOURTH:
GUEST,AR282 - PM
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:55 PM

>>FACT - The President of the United States of America does NOT need the sanction of ANYBODY to act in, what he and his administration believe to be, the best interests of the United States of America - End of story.<<

FACT - This applies to anybody and everybody on planet earth. What is your point or do you actually have one? "

The point that members of the anti-war, anti-Bush brigade were making was that the consent and approval of the United Nations was required. I am so very pleased that you so firmly agree with me that that is not the case (i.e. "This applies to anybody and everybody on planet earth." - absolutely, even GWB and the US in the case of Iraq).

FIFTH:
Bobert - 22 Dec 05 - 06:32 PM

Nice attack, T-Attack!!!

I rest my case:
Note on BOBERT FACTS - in any ensuing reply Bobert will not provide evidence to substantiate his case, instead he will rant on about T-something this, T-something that, Quack-this, Quack-that. The one thing you will not get is rational arguement, because the man is incapable of it.

Bobert Fact Application

Now in this you must remember that it was Bobert who clearly stated that the Bush Administration had orchestrated audience response, had hired audiences, analysised their responses to various questions posed in various accents - Bobert's contention.

Now does he substantiate any of that? No he does not!!! What we get from Bobert is this:

"Okay, it's time again to take Bobert Quiz...

You ready?

Good...

Here's the question: Did the Bush administration hire any PR firms to help them sell the invasion of Iraq?

Yes __________

No____________"

Bobert, you idle prat, you want me to do your work for you??? By the bye the answer is NO, if you dispute that then please give the name and address of the PR Company involved. If you can't then please desist from making higly fanciful, unsubstantiated and untrue statements about things you know absolutely nothing about.

SIXTH:
GUEST,AR282 - 22 Dec 05 - 07:04 PM

Answer to first question a complete cop out, answered as Guest AR282, responsible for sod all, now try to answer that question as someone responsible for the safety and security of a nation.

Answer to the second question is based on the false assumption that the US provided the Iraqi Government with WMD - They did not - AR282, if you have ANY proof that they did please come forward with it. AR282, it is very easy and definitely the right thing to forget something that never happened. It is just plain stupid to use a fictional occurance as the basis of any arguement.

Answer to the third question based on the misconception that the US provided Saddam Hussein with WMD - totally false.

Answer to the fourth question denies what did happen throughout the time that UNSCOM were present in Iraq and also denies the bits of pre-war intelligence that was correct. Denies the logic that if faced with having to make a decision, that decision can only be made on the information you have at the time. Again I am extremely pleased that most on this forum are not responsible for the safety and security of a nation.

Answer to the fifth question, I would tend to agree with, but with some reservations. My reason for saying that stems from the time it took to get UNMOVIC into the country plus the objections Saddam had to U2 surveillance. He certainly had time to move them. Is it possible that he moved them - well all things are possible. Is it probable that he moved them - if he thought that he could stall the US attack then yes - If he believed that the US would attack then no. I do believe that items associated with a nuclear development programme, supplied by Dr. A.Q. Khan, were removed from Iraq via Syria before UNMOVIC arrived, but only Dr. Khan can tell us that.

Answer to the sixth question is remarkably immature and irresponsible, considering the utterances of the President of Iran. As is the statement referring to the A-Bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both dropped in time of war on an aggressor who attacked the US without warning. Now that is a bit different from a country that is a signatory of the Nuclear NPT, covertly developing a nuclear capaiblity that will allow it to obtain nuclear weapons, who have recently acquired delivery systems with a range of 2500 kilometers and whose Head of State has stated that a Sovereign State that has been recognised by the UN for almost 57 years should be "Wiped off the map".

AR282, you state..."Were these questions supposed to unleash some amazing, undeniable truth on us about something?"

Well certainly not from you, as stated above IMHO, your responses are immature and irresponsible.

Apologies for the length of this post but there were a few points I felt required answers. Merry Christmas to ALL.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:27 PM

Whoa! By God, I wish I was getting paid by the word on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:52 PM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:55 PM

Nope, I know the answer. But I don't think you do. Copy off someone else's homework.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Merde, alors!
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:56 PM

Teribus apparently has a staff consisting of an infinite number of chimpanzees helping him cut-and-paste.

500 pages of goat feathers makes it next to impossible to determine if there is any truth to be found in that large a pile. If there WERE truth to be found, wouldn't it be better to simply let it shine through on its own without buring it in all the verbiage (garbiage?). Or is it the aim to convince folks that all that chaff just HAS to hide a grain of truth somewhere. If you babble incoherently long enough, just by sheer chance you might possibly say something with a touch of substance. You, know, infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters. But then, maybe not. But who has the patience to wade through all of that?

Just a thought.........

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:58 PM

>>The point that members of the anti-war, anti-Bush brigade were making was that the consent and approval of the United Nations was required. I am so very pleased that you so firmly agree with me that that is not the case (i.e. "This applies to anybody and everybody on planet earth." - absolutely, even GWB and the US in the case of Iraq).<<

As usual, you have no idea what you're saying or what I'm saying. I don't need anybody's sanction to do anything I want and that includes killing you and raping your wife and selling off your kids to a motorcycle gang if I feel like it. That DOESN'T mean anyone should approve of it or that it is lawful. I just don't need anybody's sanction to do it if I am so inclined.

Whether Bush was required to get UN sanction to invade is beside the point. My point is, he'll do it if he wants to UN sanction or no.

In the future, you would do well to understand the postion you are quoting before you quote it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:00 PM

You answered "No", T...

Yer sources, please...

Ain't about quantity but quality... You go ahead and give us the sources where you have sjust stated that the Busdh administartion didn't hire independent PR people in the selling of the Iraq invasion!!!!

Can you do that???

Hey, you took the quiz so now it's time to put-up-or-shut-up!!!

And guess what, pal??? You give??? Yer juvinilistic CAPS don't impress too many folks here... Yeah, you can BOBERT FACT me all you want but guess what, part B???

Give up???

This ain't no kiddie site here... All theese folks are adults whomhave been 'round the block a time or two... Lotta of them have been insuide the governemnt... Some were private conbtarctors... Yet you think you can out-bluff them with the ability to hit the "Shift" button on yer pudder.... Fine, that's real good... Now that you ahve conquered the "Shift" button ow maybe you can get yer head outta the fog...

Opps, didn't mean to give you an out on yer job now... I asked you if the Bush administration hired a independent PR company to heklp them with the crafting of the sellin of the invasion of Iarg and you said "No" so I guess it's time for you provide your sources....

Yeah, I know you will come back with a bunch of "BOBERT IS THIS OR THAT" rather than stand behind what you said here because that's what you do... Just like Bush "the Proclaimer", yer hero, you'll fall right back into yer MO of attacking me rather thah providing your sources...

Normal!!!

We're gettin real used to yer crap...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:22 PM

But...how can we feel SAFE if we aren't allowed to invade and kill everyone we're afraid might someday attack us?    (hysterical laughter)

There are a lotta places left to invade before I am gonna feel safe, lemme tell ya. And I ain't just talkin' Muslim places either. You can't really trust anyone who doesn't speak English, for a start. That's a given. Because...you can't understand what they're saying, and that could mean they're saying they hate you and want to kill you, couldn't it?

As I said above, I'll take the point in the Palau invasion (now that one should be a "cakewalk"; they don't even have an army, and I probably met each and every policeman they have my last "scouting mission" there). I speak the language (or at least one of them). And they take MC/VIsa and American $. Only a few unexploded munitions from WWII, and I'll avoid those approaches.

And if Palau is taken, Fiji's my second choice....

Some numbnutz quoted my Peggy Seeger:

"Every day another vulture takes flight
There's another danger born every morning
In the darkness of your blindness the beast will learn to bite
How can you fight if you can't recognise a warning?"

Then there's the rest of it:

Today you may earn a living wage
Tomorrow you may be on the dole
Though there's millions going hungry you needn't disengage
For it's them, not you, that's fallen in the hole

It's alright for you if you run with the pack
It's alright if you agree with all they do
If fascism is slowly climbing back
It's not here yet so what's it got to do with you?

Guess the numbnutz lost interest after he saw the quote he wanted. Maybe if he'd bothered to read for comprehension, he'd know a bit more of what the real dangers (and not those of his fevered hallucinations) are....

Next time I'll stir up the hornet's nest real good and link to Lean Rosselson's "Stand Up For Judas". But it may be worthwhile waiting until after the holidays.   ;-)

Happy Holidays to all!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:20 PM

Bobert,

Just as a question, "You go ahead and give us the sources where the UN says that Saddam did not have WMD!!!!

Can you do that???









Trick question, I know- the UN NEVER said he did not have WMD- just that they did not find any BECAUSE HE DID NOT COOPERATE.


So you have conceded that the US invasion was justified, by the PUBLISHED UN REPORTS.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:29 PM

"just that they did not find any BECAUSE HE DID NOT COOPERATE."

That's editorial on your part, BB.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:34 PM

Mope, THAT is what the UN report said. TRY READING some of the links I have posted so often in the past, instead of just deciding what they say without looking at them

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:53 AM

Little Hawk - 22 Dec 05 - 09:27 PM - Humorous

GUEST 22 Dec 05 - 09:52 PM - Huh??

GUEST,TIA - 22 Dec 05 - 09:55 PM - Opinion nothing else, but if it's based on the same as some of the arrant rubbish you have posted, no wonder you don't want to share it with anyone.

GUEST,Merde, alors! - 22 Dec 05 - 09:56 PM - Personal attack

GUEST,AR282 - 22 Dec 05 - 09:58 PM - Demonstrating that he has not bothered reading anything on this thread.

Bobert - 22 Dec 05 - 10:00 PM - Typical Bobert rant.

Arne - 22 Dec 05 - 10:22 PM - Personal attack

GUEST,beardedbruce - 22 Dec 05 - 11:20 PM - Don't wait for Bobert to answer your question.

Peace - 22 Dec 05 - 11:29 PM - Incorrect, please refer to UNMOVIC Reports to UN Security Council and to terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

GUEST,beardedbruce - 22 Dec 05 - 11:34 PM - BB most here cannot, or will not read original source material. Instead they tend to rely on what their pet media sources tell them to think. I suppose it does have the advantages of speed and that it takes no effort on their part and therefore does not tire them out.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:52 AM

Peace:

Since you cannot seem to bother actually looking at the facts as presented by some of us here, I will put a portion of the report by the UN here, in hope you might decide how "editorial" my statement was. Or is that too much to ask?



"While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.



Another air operation problem – which was solved during our recent talks in Baghdad – concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours. This would have raised a safety problem. The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraq minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.



I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.



On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites.



The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.



Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.





Cooperation on substance


The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programmes of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusion that nothing proscribed remains.



Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.





The declaration of 7 December



On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.



One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356). These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.



While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.



They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.



I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.





Chemical weapons         


The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. "

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM

Please note the following statement by Blix, in the above report:

"UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. "


What part of "but nor is it(UNMOVIC) ... presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq." do you have a problem understanding?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM

{BeardedBruce]: "just that they did not find any BECAUSE HE DID NOT COOPERATE."

That's editorial on your part, BB.

Counterfactual, actually. They didn't find them because there was nothing to find. The U.N. inspectors did report that they hadn't found anything of any significance (albeit they added they had more work to do to confirm this assessment and make sure). They did report that there was some initial resistance to the inspections but that they were getting reasonable levels of co-operation towards the end, and were confidant they could complete their job successfully if given some time. But that was the last thing that Dubya wanted to happen, for some strange reason....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:13 AM

(arne) "They didn't find them because there was nothing to find."


Now, THAT is unsupported opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:42 AM

from UN Res 1441:

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

          1.       Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

          2.       Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

          3.       Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

          4.       Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

          5.       Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;



[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 04:06 AM

Amid all the verbiage here, can anyone actually point me to an official or at least reputable source where it states that there were WMDs in Iraq, as stated in the title of this thread?

I was under the impression that the reasons for invading Iraq were:
1) That Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was prepared to use them, and
2) That Iraq was linked to the 11 September attacks.
Regime change, the fostering of democracy or the salvation of the suffering people of Iraq were not mentioned.

As far as I can see, reason one is now dead in the water, and even Bush has implied that the decision was based on faulty intelligence.
Reason two never was a starter - why on earth would a secular Ba'athist regime which had already repressed Islamicist thought in Iraq turn to fundamentalist Islamicists? As far as I can see there is absolutely no evidence of any significant link between Saddam's government and Al Quaida, and would appreciate the help of the hawks here in finding it.

And surely, if there was any substance at all in either of the reasons given, don't you think we would have heard it trumpeted from the rooftops by now. Erudite and articulate as the posters here undoubtedly are, I rather doubt that the Bush administration has passed to them the baton of truth and enlightenment.
As for the failure of the UN inspectors to find WMDs; yes, I'm sure the Ba'ath regime was unhelpful and obstructive. But can anyone find me a link that shows that Hans Blix or any other part of the UN therefore agreed that the subsequent aggression was justified?
So come on chaps, admit that the world isn't flat and that the reasons for the war, as given, were not supported by the facts. And that, surely, is what matters.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 04:13 AM

"I was under the impression that the reasons for invading Iraq were:
1) That Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was prepared to use them, and
2) That Iraq was linked to the 11 September attacks."



You obviously had the wrong impression. Perhaps you should have read beyond the headlines, into the quotes of statements rather than the editorial blurbs in large letters.

1- The stated point was that he had PROGRAMS that would lead to his having WMD in the near future, in violation of the UN resolutions.

2. Show me ANY statement of this. The statement was that Saddam , with WMD , posed a real threat. All on his own. 9/11 just made some people aware that some problems needed to be dealt with, not swept under the rug as the Clinton administration had.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 04:43 AM

Sorry guest, but not according to tht nice Mr Blair, or that nice Colin Powell. They both stated unequivocally that Saddam had WMDs.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 04:49 AM

Gervase,

Show me the direct quote.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:51 AM

Blair, 24 Septemebr 2002: "It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."
And later (28 September 2004): "The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it."
Powell: (February 5 2003): "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent."
Powell again: "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."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:53 AM

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:57 AM

"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. "

Blix, Jan. 2003

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:19 AM

2. Show me ANY statement of this. The statement was that Saddam , with WMD , posed a real threat. All on his own. 9/11 just made some people aware that some problems needed to be dealt with, not swept under the rug as the Clinton administration had.
Try these...

Powell: "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida. These denials are simply not credible."
Powell again: ""These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months,"Cheney: Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Geroge Tenet: "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."
Tenet again: ""We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qa'ida going back a decade,"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:30 AM

...trouble is, you can argue with flat-earthers, creationists, neo-cons and similar until you're blue in the face. It doesn't seem to change anything.
These are people who would like to see the world in purely black and white terms - and the worrying thing is that the Bush administration is stuffed with them. What I do find astonishing is that so many people actually believe and respect these people and spend time and energy parroting their views on forums like this. Do they really expect us to swallow such crap just because some 'me too' conservative wannabee spends his time cutting and pasting? At least Coloin Powell had the grace and dignity to apologise.

To recap, however:
1: No WMDs in Iraq
2: No link between Saddam and 9/11
3: The Earth is round

Got that?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:15 AM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:16 AM

Teribus - you ducked a simple assignment. Out of fear I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:28 AM

Of course, it was outta fear, TIA...

T-The-Dog-Ate-My-Homework is long on assigning other folks homework, long on proclaimation, loong at CAPS, but short on backing up stuff when T-The-Avoider is asked to back up his proclaimations...

Sound familiar???

Lot like his hero, if ya' ask me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Merde, alors!
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:19 PM

No, Teribus, not a personal attack. An observation. I've waded through enough of your posts to know that most of that bulk is goatfeathers and kapok padding. It LOOKS like you've done a lot of research, but it just doesn't bear out. Bloody waste of time!

But the sheer mass of it LOOKS impressive.........

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:45 PM

From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:13 AM

(arne) "They didn't find them because there was nothing to find."

Now, THAT is unsupported opinion.

Nah. That's what MET Alpha found. That's what Kay said before resigning in disgust. That's what Duelfer and the ISG reported. That's what UNMOVIC basically said before Dubya had them kicked out. That's what Dubya has even said (and then joked about his little faux pas which has cost 2100+ U.S. soldiers and many more other people their lives). Granted, Dubya's prevaricated here and said both that WoMD were found and that there weren't any, but when he gets a pang of honesty or is off-guard, he sometimes lets the truth out. He's even recently come close to admitting a mistake in this respect (but in typical Republican manner of taking responsibility, foisted off culpability on someone else).

Clear now?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:54 PM

So, uh, they found any WMDs yet?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:46 PM

"They didn't find them because there was nothing to find."

Now, THAT is unsupported opinion.

Nah. That's what MET Alpha found. That's what Kay said before resigning in disgust. That's what Duelfer and the ISG reported. That's what UNMOVIC basically said before Dubya had them kicked out. That's what Dubya has even said (and then joked about his little faux pas which has cost 2100+ U.S. soldiers and many more other people their lives). "





Now, this next point may be too subtle for you, Arne, but no-one has said that there was nothing to find- NO-ONE.

All that has been said was that we did not find any. By YOUR logic, since NO-ONE ever found ( for certain) Hitler's body, either he did not exit, or he did not die in WWII.

Lack of eveidence is NOT evidence of lack.

I QUOTED the UNMOVIC report- do you have some sort of reading problem?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:17 PM

Once more for Arne with the vacuum packed brain:

The folowing quotes do not read "did":

"the allegation"

"pretty well confirmed"

"We have reporting"

"cited the possibility"

You are the one carrying on a propaganda campaign and it is not working.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:21 PM

You started it with a bullshit post.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 11:11 PM

Teribus,

As you requested:

And he'd probably read the front page Washington Post story ("U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup", 12/30/02) based upon recently declassified documents, which revealed that it was Rumsfeld himself who, as President Reagan's Middle East Envoy, had traveled to the Region to meet with Saddam Hussein in December 1983 to normalize, particularly, security relations.

At the time of the visit , Iraq had already been removed from the State Department's list of terrorist countries in 1982; and in the previous month, November, President Reagan had approved National Security Decision Directive 114, on expansion of U.S.-Iraq relations generally. But it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90 for lucrative U.S. weapons exports--some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical/biological and nuclear weapons equipment and technology, along with critical components for missile delivery systems for all of the above. According to a 1994 GAO Letter Report (GAO/NSIAD-94-98) some 771 weapons export licenses for Iraq were approved during this six year period....not by our European allies, but by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

http://www.rense.com/general35/rums.htm

On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.

However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.

In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.

Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.
Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of "increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market"—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military."

In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 03:06 PM

just to clarify something....BB is right when he says "Lack of eveidence is NOT evidence of lack.", that is, because we haven't found any, we can't conclude absolutely that there weren't any. But this is almost a trivial piece of 'rightness', since "there weren't any" is a good bet!
Not finding any after LOTS of looking by folks who are good at looking tends to lead credence to the idea that there were none to find. Offering rewards for info didn't lead to any, offering amnesty and a trip out of the country didn't lead to any, and interviews with some of Saddam's weapons experts suggested that he HAD tried and considered getting bigger weapons, but that only minimal progress had been made. Only a couple missles with 'technically' proscribed range were found.


oh, and by the way, Bruce...*grin*...as to Hitler's body they DID find a few bits

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 06:45 PM

BillD,

I stand corrected on Hitler's body.

Give it 54 years, and it might be recognized that some of what we have already found is evidence of WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 04:54 PM

why?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 04:59 PM

to cause trouble would be my best guess.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:31 PM

I'd guess it's just to 'suggest' that low grade yellowcake somehow counts as 'missed' WMDs

"well...well...Saddam 'might' have made something nasty with it, in 8-9 years and a lot of luck!!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 06:14 PM

"Saddam 'might' have made something nasty with it, in 8-9 years and a lot of luck"

Let me see... Ebbie says he had it in 1991, and we did not find it until 2003... 12 years.

So you imply that he had sufficient time to make WMDs


I point out that it was WMD PROGRAMS, not actual WMD that the UN and Bush were after- so this certainly qualifies.

I recall asking some years back exactly what would be considered sufficient proof of those programs, and there was no reply. I guess it has to be a moving goal, so you can always claim to "not have any evidence of the prohibited activities."


IRB Missiles- no
chemical warheads for artillary- no
Yellowcake ( that you said he did not have) - no
research teams working on nuclear weapons - no

I am going to guess that if they find a complete nuclear devices, ready to go, those here will complain that Saddam would not have used it, so it does not count as a WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 06:34 PM

"New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter" may be able to sell books like
a tabloid newspaper peddles its gossip.

The largest purveyor of WMD's being sold all over the world is the MIC of the US.

If any nuke weapons were even thought about being used in Iraq or Iran, the Bushites
would destroy those countries in a heartbeat.

This makes the whole idea of this book ridiculous.

The real issue is this....will Bush attack Iran? Seymour Hersh and others believe
that this is a real possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 06:38 PM

"that if they find"

Big if, but I think it's something you'd love for someone to find, it'd justify your existence. It's simple the US had no business violating the borders of a sovereign nation (that is considered a war crime by the way)and has no business prolonging it's presence in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 06:40 PM

durn, bruce...you can turn those hypotheticals you invent into full-blown conspiracies!

No...I don't 'imply' any such thing.

"...it was WMD PROGRAMS, not actual WMD ..." ????? .... I fail to see a serious distinction...and...I do NOT see how a pile of almost unusable low-grade uranium constitutes a 'program'. He might have had some hope for it once, but the point is, everyone who knew anything said that he had NO viable, dangerous programs going on that would justify an invasion!!

Trying to justify what Bush did by referring to that pile of crap is silly!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 07:59 PM

A couple of articles putting the recent yellow cake shipment in context appeared a few days ago, but they've been overwhelmed by the more popular panic mongering and are all but impossible to find now.

One article stating the actual status of the transported yellow cake, that agrees with the SANE AND RATIONAL reports prior to the panic mongering is still up at:

Iraqi YelowCake

Quote:

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said....

/Quote

Lets look at it again:

Quote:

U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, BEFORE THE 1991 GULF WAR

/Quote

The yellow cake that was recently transported to Canada:

Quote:

… which had been stored in aging drums and containers SINCE BEFORE THE 1991 GULF WAR.

***

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY YELLOWCAKE DATING FROM AFTER 1991

/Quote

The yellow cake in question was known to, and under supervision and control of, the UN SINCE BEFORE THE 1991 GULF WAR


It was never considered a "weapons threat" and could not have made even a "dirty bomb" of any significant effectiveness, although used in any kind of terrorist activity the slight detectable radiation could have spread panic or could have lent credibility (AMONG THE IGNORANT) to a terrorist claim of having used a nuclear weapon.

As it was under UN control, supervision, and inspection since before 1991, it CANNOT have been used credibly to support any "program" by the Iraqi government.

Secrecy in the recent transport was entirely to prevent any attempt to interfere with the shipment FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES, or to take any of this "icky stuff" FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES.


John

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:34 PM

☺

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:37 PM

(gee, I hope the large text is read & noticed by those who....ummmm...)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:47 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST,Teribus - PM
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 10:42 AM


UNSCOM reported what WMD were in existence but unaccounted for in January 1999, that report was based on information supplied by the Iraqi authorities themselves. Did he have any significant WMDs at the time we invaded? His declaration of 7th December, 2002 didn't shed any light on that according to Dr. Hans Blix, who voiced his dissappointment at the content of that declaration. The "scrap metal in Holland" does tell us that equipment the Iraqi's should not have had had been moved out of the country by the Iraqi regime. Now if they moved "scrap metal", why is it so inconceivable that other things were not similarly exported? Oh yes! Nerd says that couldn't have happened because loads were examined for traces of radioactivity or explosives. A question for you Nerd, exactly what radioactive, or explosive trace signature would you expect to get from chemical/biological warfare agent, in either its weaponised or component form? I'll be interested in your response to that one.

According to the debriefing of Dr A. Q. Khan, he stated that he assisted with the removal of items transferred from Iraq to Syria and on to Pakistan by air - wonder exactly what that consisted of? What was Dr. Khan's area of expertise again? Could be we are not talking about anything that was radioactive here, what about computer hard drives, files, etc, relating to an Iraqi nuclear programme? Possible or not?

Whatever cock-eyed definition Nerd uses to describe what he would call WMD. Based upon what he contends they are not, I would say that you would have no WMD without research and development programmes, you would have no WMD without manufacturing facilities, you would have no WMD without the delivery systems.

And no Nerd, the bottom line to date is this:
- No nuclear weapons have been found and I don't think they will be. Whether or not there was a programme running to ressurect Iraq's nuclear programme is still open to question.
- Chemical/biological weapons in the form of unfilled munitions have been found by both UNMOVIC inspectors and Coalition Forces.
- Delivery system development programmes (post 1998) for proscribed weapons were discovered.
- Missiles that were prohibited by UNSC Resolutions were discovered by UNMOVIC.
- In the face of supposedly tight UN sanctions 384 illegally imported rocket motors were discovered by UNMOVIC.
- A shell, rigged as IED, containing Sarin was discovered by Coalition Forces.

In other words, while the stockpile of WMD agents, munitions and delivery systems as stated by UNSCOM have not been found. It is clear that items have been exported from Iraq during the run up to the invasion, the exact extent and nature of the complete list of items exported is not known at present.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:17 PM

Bruce - you say "I recall asking some years back exactly what would be considered sufficient proof of those programs, and there was no reply."

I remember you asking exactly that, and I specifically replied. Now I've just gotta go track it down...when I get a few minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:21 PM

Voila!

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1210161

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:44 PM

Weary Medical Doctors were found.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:45 PM

Wafflers Making Distractions?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:24 PM

What TIA posted:

Now to beardedbruce's question: "...what evidence would be acceptable...?" We were told repeartedly that if we did not invade Iraq, there would be a mushroom cloud over our heads, or unmanned drones would deliver chemical or biological weapons to our shores, or at least our allies, or Saddam would build and give nukes to Bin Laden. I would accept as evidence of a truly imminent danger from Iraqi W's of MD the discovery of facilities to make nasty stuff and/or relatively recent (not 10 or 20 year old) nasty stuff, and the vehicles to deliver it nearby and in working order. We were not told before the invasion that it was necessary because there were a few old Iran-Iraq war era chemical mortar rounds, and decrepit rocket parts, and trucks that might be used to incubate nasty microbes -- or possibly to make weather balloon gas. In short I want to see what we were told we would see, and in the quantities and readiness that we were told they would be before I say "yeah, looky here, you were right."

My reply:


From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:39 PM

a stockpile of chemical warheads, for existing Iraqi artillary? The facilities to manufacture the chemicals to put in the warheads? Long range rockets, prohibited under UN sanctions?

But thank you for at least having the decency to define what you would accept as proof.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:36 PM

WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
So that's where my daughter's cookbook went!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: kendall
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 07:30 AM

Saddam promised us the Mother of all battles if we invaded. Ok, if he had all those weapons of mass destruction, why didn't he use them?
Because, it was all a sham! He knew he had no such weapons, but he didn't want us to know. Seven years of inspections had
turned up NOTHING!

Show us the weapons...show us ONE of the weapons. Bush's lying mouth is one of ours.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 08:46 AM

They never found WLD in Iraq. He's far too sensible for that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: fumblefingers
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:52 PM

One wonders why Saddam had all that "almost useless" uranium on hand if it was, in fact, almost useless. The Canadians wanted it for something.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 02:22 AM

"Saddam promised us the Mother of all battles if we invaded. Ok, if he had all those weapons of mass destruction, why didn't he use them?
Because, it was all a sham! He knew he had no such weapons, but he didn't want us to know. Seven years of inspections had
turned up NOTHING!

Show us the weapons...show us ONE of the weapons. Bush's lying mouth is one of ours." - kendall

Which year are we talking about kendall 1991 or 2003? I would imagine, because of the last sentence of the first paragraph you are referring to 2003. Are you honestly trying to tell us than UNSCOM found nothing between 1991 and 1998 (seven years), if so their reports which are a matter of record contradict you rather markedly.

Now why would someone who had chemical and biological weapons be wary of using them against enemies amongst whose ranks were NATO and particularly US troops? Kendall could it have anything whatsoever to do with well known NATO doctrine that the automatic response to, and consequence of attack by chemical or biological weapons is the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

BB is correct in this thread WMD's were found but not in such quantities to satisfy the anti-US, anti-war, anti-Bush faction. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 allowed Iraq no material breaches of it's terms and conditions, there were in fact seven such breaches between December 2002 and March 2003. George W. Bush was as good as his word, "If the United nations will not act, we will". He was perfectly correct in doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 02:24 AM

Willfully Made Deceptions

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:13 AM

Just in case you missed it, this story in the Guardian today:

"Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war

Not holding my breath for any apologies or admissions of error though.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:16 AM

If you read, you will also note that his claims were thoroughly refuted even before Colin Powell's infamous speech.

But we already knew that too didn't we?

Thanks to Rummy's book.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: kendall
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:03 PM

Saddam was ordered to get rid of his WMDs. He did.They went to Syria, and that's why he didn't use them against us when we invaded Iraq. Forget the rhetoric, use your heads and look at the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:30 PM

The book is well named. Disinformation about WMD's

If, by some mythology, these items were found there, that would not justify the
fear that Saddam could have developed any kind of destructive nukes.

I trust the credible commission that investigated them, UNSCOM and Scott Ritter.

There is a great deal of mis and disinformation being spread for political
reasons.

I will say this however. George W. Bush was not elected president to the U.S.
but appointed by the Supreme Court. Any information coming from his
cabinet or administration should be questioned.

Remember that there are many best-selling authors on the New York Times list such as Rumsfeld, et. al. It is easy to buy up enough books through political operatives to influence the list.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:27 PM

I read a comment elsewhere today that I think is pretty telling.

When we invaded Iraq, we went in headlong, expecting and getting very little resistance.

Why? If we truly thought Saddam had WMD, why were we not more cautious? Why the headlong rush to Baghdad?

Why?

Because the powers that ordered the invasion KNEW THERE WOULD BE NO WMD RESPONSE! If they'd expected them, they'd not have done it the way they did, and risk a huge casualty count that the public would fault them for.

They went in unafraid, because they KNEW there was little to fear.

And no, they didn't know this because they'd monitored Syria, either, since the weapons didn't go there. They didn't go anywhere because they didn't exist. We've found lots of conventional, aging artillery shells, etc., but nothing "scary" or unusual. They didn't exist.

And the war-planners, the war-mongers, selling us this shell game?

They knew.

They knew.

They knew, and they went.

And we know the rest.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:34 PM

I lied about WMD

Above links to article about the Iraqi he defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme. He lied about this because he saw an opportunity to have Saddam overthrown. Or so he says now.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:36 PM

Whether or not a country possesses various weapons of mass destruction, it is no valid excuse for launching a war of your own free choice (open aggression, in other words) against that country. By doing so, you are proving that YOU are the dangerous one in the world, not them.

If possessing weapons of mass destruction were any justification for such aggression upon a country, then the entire world would be justified in attacking the USA, the world's number one possessor of WMDs, and they could use the same argument Bush did...."We gotta stop 'em now before they USE those weapons!" ;-)

The entire Middle Eastern region would likewise be justified in attacking Israel, because Israel is concealing a large number of nuclear weapons of mass destruction and everybody knows it. ;-)

So why don't they? Because Israel and the USA are so heavily armed that no one would DARE try and take away their WMDs, that's why.

You see how damned silly it all is? Certain countries in the world, namely those who are absolutely armed to the teeth and far more powerful than their neighbours use the excuse that one of those weaker neighbours is hiding weapons of mass destruction, and they attack their weaker neighbour, supposedly because of that threat!!! Man, talk about an excercise in hypocrisy....it's the bandit attacking the homeowner, claiming that the homeowner is a threat to the bandit!

The USA was never in any danger from Iraq, even if Iraq had had those WMD's, yet the Bush administration relied on hysterical propaganda about WMDs for one purpose only....to get the American public to support such a war. The general public is assumed to be ignorant enough to be manipulated by such nonsense....and it's a correct assumption.

NO country has the right to launch a war of aggression against another country merely because that country has....or is reputed to have...various weapons.

That's like you say to the police, "I'm going to shoot my neighbour, and here's why. He has a gun hidden in his house. I fear that he may use that gun to someday shoot me, so I'm going to go over, bust his door down, and shoot him first with my guns, of which I have about 5,000 here, including bazookas, machine guns, howitzers, etc. I am justified in this, because I can't live with the fear that he has a pistol hidden in his house, and he might one day use it against me."

That is the pathetic kind of laughable logic that the US administration used to attack Iraq, it has no basis in any kind of international law or even in any kind of sanity....and accordingly, all this bla-bla here about whether or not Iraq had any WMDs is utterly beside the point.

The sense of entitlement and utter grandiosity that is typically displayed by the USA and Israel in regards to their supposed divine right to do what no one else in the world is allowed to do is quite striking. They can apparently attack anyone they want, any time they want, merely upon suspicion that their victims might be planning to someday attack them! Wow. ;-) Hilarious. Imagine if all nations had carte blanche to act in such a godlike fashion. We'd have a lively little world, wouldn't we?

Their unique sense of entitlement and untouchable dominion, their sheer arrogance, is no less than that of the Spanish Inquisition, who could accuse anyone they wanted of witchcraft or satanism, sieze them, torture them until they admitted to it...then say, "See? We were right! They WERE witches!"

It's absolute bullshit to imagine that that war was really being fought over WMDs in Iraq, whether or not they ever existed. That war was fought over the usual grand imperial objectives (resources, land, regional and political control, etc)...not over some nonexistent fear of Iraq's wretchedly puny ability to defend itself with advanced weapons.

The pity of it is that much of the North American public is ignorant enough and silly enough to fall for such transparent nonsense. They like a simple, dramatic story, and that's what the administration gives them. The story is always made up to fit the occasion, and it seldom has much to do with reality.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:39 PM

Kendall... Syria... don't forget Lybia.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 02:00 PM

Look, aggressive military empires always do exactly what they want to do...IF they have the power to do it.

If Saddam, for instance, had had the power to attack all his neighbours and occupy the entire Middle East, I'm sure he'd have done it. He never had such power, though. He was unable to defeat Iran in the 80s. He was able to invade and occupy Kuwait, because Kuwait was much smaller and weaker than Iraq.

The USA is strong enough to attack and occupy Iraq, and had decided it would be advantageous to do so. Therefore, they did so. In order to do so, though...they had to first convince their own public and world opinion that they were doing so for a good reason...and not just committing blatant imperial aggression.

Hence, they blathered on about supposed Iraqi WMDs. And their public bought it. But it was just a transparent excuse for doing what they wanted to do regardless....and even if Iraq HAD those WMDs, it would have presented no real danger to America. None whatsoever. Therefore it had nothing to do with the decision America made to go to war.

It was a red herring...a propaganda gambit...whether or not those WMDs ever existed. To argue about whether they existed is to miss the more cogent point that they were NOT what that war was really about.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 02:36 PM

LH... "To argue about whether they existed is to miss the more cogent point that they were NOT what that war was really about."

True. But the fact that they did exist and were spirited out of Iraq before the invasion is a point in favour of those who say... "... that they were NOT what that war was really about."

No?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:40 PM

From Guest SongBob's post:

"When we invaded Iraq, we went in headlong, expecting and getting very little resistance.

Why? If we truly thought Saddam had WMD, why were we not more cautious? Why the headlong rush to Baghdad?

Why?

Because the powers that ordered the invasion KNEW THERE WOULD BE NO WMD RESPONSE! If they'd expected them, they'd not have done it the way they did, and risk a huge casualty count that the public would fault them for.

They went in unafraid, because they KNEW there was little to fear.

This is March 2003 you are talking about right?

What were the differences in approach to the invasion in 1991 and 2003? Damn few that I can see and we definitely knew that Saddam Hussein HAD WMD in 1991 didn't we. After Safwan UNSCOM inspectors went in there and found a whole rake of them between 1991 and 1998. They wrote many reports regularly detailing the progress they were making, the lack of co-operation they were experiencing, and the discrepencies in the Iraqi inventories and gaps in the records.

Now why if he had these chemical and biological weapons did he not use them. The answer to that is simple. The Russians would have told Saddam that if he used those weapons against NATO troops the response would come in the form of tactical nuclear stikes against Iraq.

Now if he had these chemical and biological weapons which armed forces in the world were best trained and equipped to survive such an attack? NATO, who had been in training to face exactly this threat in Europe for 40 years.

Whether Saddam had any WMD was not the point of the exercise. UNSCOM and its successor UNMOVIC did not go into Iraq TO FIND WMD. Their job was to confirm and verify that IRAQ no longer possessed these weapons, to confirm and verify that Iraq was no longer pursuing the development or acquisition of those weapons or the means to deliver them, because at Safwan in April 1991 Saddam Hussein's representatives on behalf or Iraq had agreed to disarm in a manner that could be verified and confirmed by the United Nations appointed Inspectors. The invasion of March 2003 was undertaken to force compliance of the Safwan Agreement on Iraq and verify beyond doubt that Iraq disarmed, and that was done.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:41 PM

Yes.... (smile) Good point, gnu.

Anyone who thinks that war was actually fought over fears about Iraqi WMDs (whether or not there were any) probably still believes in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy too...or would if their government and media told them to. ;-)

If the war was about WMDs (that were presumably moved to Syria), then Syria would soon have been invaded too in order to secure those WMDs. It was not about WMDs at all. Syria has been left alone so far, because they have cooperated with the USA on essential policy points. Saddam was not cooperating. He was selling Iraqi oil pegged to Euros, not US dollars. That was unacceptable to the American administration....but that was not something that the administration could use to convince the ordinary American public that Saddam was "a threat to the whole world"...which he most certainly was not. They needed something SCARY! So they came up with the WMD scare. They have been attempting to do the same in regards to Iran for some time now.

Hell, it worked once! ;-) Why not try it again?

Meanwhile, North Korea really has those nukes. Gosh! And there's been no war over it. Well, why would there be? If the North Koreans used a nuke it would only lead to their own annihilation by a massive American counterattack. It's simply a deterrent to those who might attack them, that's all. Likewise, an Iranian or Iraqi nuke could only have served as a deterrent to potential attackers, given that both Israel and the USA have nukes aplenty to totally outgun Iran and Iraq.

Smaller nations want nukes as a deterrent, not as a first strike weapon. It makes sense as a deterrent to an invader, it makes no sense as a first strike weapon...unless you are powerful enough not to fear the counterstroke of the one you attack.

If Saddam had already had 2 or 3 nukes and the means to deliver them to the target, would the USA have invaded Iraq? No. And that is the reason why small powers like Iraq and Iran want nukes. They want to deter an invasion of their land by a far greater military power.

And that's totally understandable from their point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 07:07 PM

Wars rarely have a single cause. Anyone who thinks that war was actually fought over Iraqi oil probably still believes in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy too. While it was certainly a contributing factor, the US was neither dependent upon nor really a significant purchaser of Iraqi oil before or after the invasion.

Was it about WMDs? Who really knows? While the vast preponderance of the intelligence available at the time certainly indicated that there were none, did Bush II believe it? The idea that they existed but were somehow moved at the last minute to Syria or Libya is as much a fairy tale as the stories of squadrons of new Soviet-era fighters cocooned and buried in the desert. It is most likely that the major cause for Gulf War part I and part II was the very real non-nuclear military threat that Iraq posed to Saudi Arabia.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 07:33 PM

Correct, artbrooks, wars usually have multiple causes, and I'm sure this one did. As I said in an earlier post: "That war was fought over the usual grand imperial objectives (resources, land, regional and political control, etc)...not over some nonexistent fear of Iraq's wretchedly puny ability to defend itself with advanced weapons."

There is no moral or legal justification for pre-emptively attacking another country merely because it possesses or is rumoured to possess some kind of weapons. To do so is absolutely illegal aggression, pure and simple.

If you don't get that...just imagine for a moment if some other country...any country...openly attacked your country on that basis, and tell me how you would feel about it....you'd be outraged! And rightly so.

The USA isn't dependent on Iraqi oil, and I'm not suggesting that they are. What I am suggesting is that they want all Middle Eastern oil to be officially marketed in US dollars, not in the Euro. Saddam switched the sales of Iraqi oil to the Euro shortly before the 2003 war. I'm suggesting that it was that move by Saddam which sealed his fate, because it got in the way of American monetary interests. Ultimately, money is THE crucial deciding factor in most weighty political decisions, including the decision to go to war.

Nonetheless, there would have been a host of other contributing reasons for the war, I'm sure, but I doubt that fear of Iraqi WMDs was one of them. I don't think the US administration was one bit scared of Iraqi WMDs...unless they're a lot stupider than I think they are... (always a possibility, I suppose). I don't think they're stupid. I think they're ambitious, ruthless, and bent on winning the game of imperial competition...their main rivals being Russia and China, and perhaps India a bit farther down the road.

If you go back to 1991...then, yes, the USA was afraid of a possible Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia, following the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait...but that would no longer have been a factor in 2003. Iraq was tremedously weakened by 2003, quite incapable of being a threat to anyone but their own religious and ethnic splinter groups within the country itself.

Bush was crying "Wolf!" in 2003...but not out of any real threat to anyone by Saddam...he was doing it because the American Empire had decided to add another section to its imperial holdings in the Middle East...under a toothless client government, of course. ;-) That's how it's done these days. First you destroy the existing government by military force and/or by assassination (as in Allende's Chile). Then you set up a farcical appearance of a new democracy by allowing 2 or more new parties to go at it in a voting excercise that is rather like painting whitewash on a tomb and calling it a mansion. All the while, you keep a powerful US military presence on the ground, on the sea, and in the air, to ensure that that it is really YOU who controls that country. That's how empires do it these days. Official colonialism has been replaced by de facto colonialism, masquerading as "liberation" and "democratization".

If anyone else dared to do it, the USA would scream in outrage. But the USA does it, and feels righteous about it...being utterly certain that they are, as it were, the right hand of God, setting the affairs of a suffering humanity in order. ;-)

No one could believe it, except the USA...but empires always believe in their own hype. They have to. It's inherent to their whole sense of identity.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:28 AM

"Hell, it worked once! ;-) Why not try it again?"

Actually it worked twice... remember "premature babies torn from humidicribs" ...?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:38 AM

"Above links to article about the Iraqi he defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme. He lied about this because he saw an opportunity to have Saddam overthrown. Or so he says now. "

Already mentioned ""premature babies torn from humidicribs"" didn't I?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 03:47 AM

It sounds like, at least from your posts, that finding WMD's in Iraq, is about like finding integrity and honesty in Washington!..and if that's the case, in their press releases, from Washington....and if that's the case maybe everything that everybody is fighting about, in their blathers, is all built on nonsense....and all the while, they are just doing what they want!....if that's the case.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Stu
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:01 AM

This is a misleading statement T, which you probably know. The Seventeenth quarterly report on the activities of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission submitted in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999) taken from the UN website clearly states "In his testimony, the head of the Iraq Survey Group noted that the Group continued to look for weapons of mass destruction."

This means they were proactively seeking out WMDs. They went to Iraq to find WMD's - get it right Teribus lad. I suspect you actually know all this, but I'm impressed with your ability to fight a rearguard action for a lost cause rather than admit you've been wrong, especially as the case continues to crumble into pieces.

Curveball lied.

Ever got the feeling you've been had?

"Whether Saddam had any WMD was not the point of the exercise. UNSCOM and its successor UNMOVIC did not go into Iraq TO FIND WMD."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Stu
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 09:10 AM

Blast - got the post a bit topsy-turvey. The quote should go at the top.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 09:36 AM

I thought this issue had already been laid to rest...

I mean, the last piece that Bush needed to justify his war of choice was proof that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program and so he asked Tony Baloney to produce it so Tony B. went out and found a 20 year old term paper that some college kid wrote in the early 90s and presented it to Bush and there for the "17 words" (or however many it was in Bush's State of the Union Address and the rest, like they say, is history...

Well, along with the 3000+ dead Americans, the 20,000+ Diasabled Americans, upwards of a million innocent Iraqis and a boat load of of the $$$ that now weighs in our national deficit situation...

Go figure???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 10:07 AM

This issue should not be laid to rest.
There is no statute of limitations.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 11:23 AM

Geoduck, what you have presented are not facts but fatoids.

Here's the real deal.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/15-8

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 02:01 PM

Some of you who wish to be more informed about the Iraq War might read `Cobra II` Excellent book.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 02:17 PM

Not the war crimes, TIA...

The proof that Bush was lieing thru his teeth...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 02:32 PM

"not facts but fatoids."

Are Fatoids what Fatheads ingest?



I'll get me hat ....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 04:44 PM

Ah Sugarfoot, don't you read anything at all??

Tell me the period covered by that report by UNMOVIC? Did you notice it at all? 1st March to 31st May 2004. A report by UNMOVIC to the United Nations regarding the work being carried out in Iraq by the Iraq Survey Group, which had nothing whatsoever to do with UNSCOM; UNMOVIC or indeed the United Nations.

That being the case, please tell me at what point is my statement about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC not being in Iraq to search for and find WMD incorrect?

After all according to the directions detailed in UNSCR 687 and 1441 Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist Regime in Iraq were supposed to have:

1. Made a full and frank declaration and account of the status of their WMD programmes.

2. Taken the UNMOVIC Inpectors to the sites and locations, where WMD were stored, manufactured or disposed of

3. Provide UNMOVIC Inpectors with verifiable documentary evidence of the destruction of any WMD agents or weapons.

4. Provide answers accounting for any anomalies or points of clarification raised by UNMOVIC Inspectors in the course of their work

Now had the Iraqi authorities complied with all of that there would be no need for UNMOVIC to play "hide-and-seek" would there??

"This means they were proactively seeking out WMDs. They went to Iraq to find WMD's - The Iraq Survey Group DID - UNSCOM & UNMOVIC DID NOT - get it right Sugarfoot lad.

Ask yourself the reason why The Iraq Survey Group had to look and search - because when they started their work, after the invasion there were NO IRAQI AUTHORITIES IN PLACE TO CO-OPERATE WITH - you muppet, pay attention to detail, it sometimes helps when putting an argument together.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:02 PM

"That war was fought over the usual grand imperial objectives (resources, land, regional and political control, etc)...not over some nonexistent fear of Iraq's wretchedly puny ability to defend itself with advanced weapons." - Little Hawk

The usual imperial objectives eh??

What "resources" did the USA come away with then? None as far as I can see.

What "land" has the USA acquired? None as far as I can determine.

Does the US have any greater control over the region or political direction within the region than it had before? Nope, just about the same, I'd say.

I had to laugh at this bit:

"not over some nonexistent fear of Iraq's wretchedly puny ability to defend itself with advanced weapons."

It wasn't Iraq's puny ability to DEFEND itself that was the problem was it? It was the potential for Iraq to supply a terrorist group with WMD in secret for that terrorist group to use against targets inside the USA that posed the problem. After all post 11th September 2001 any attack particularly any "terrorist spectacular" on the USA would be put down to who? Who would be the first name in the frame? Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda correct? Giving Saddam plenty of wriggle room for denial.

As far as people lying about Iraq's WMD, please remember that Saddam Hussein himself admitted that between 1991 and 2003 he did everyhting in his power to convince his neighbours and the world at large that Iraq still possessed WMD and the means to deliver them. People then cannot be blamed for believing it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: gnu
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:14 PM

Art... "The idea that they existed but were somehow moved at the last minute to Syria or Libya is as much a fairy tale as the stories of squadrons of new Soviet-era fighters cocooned and buried in the desert."

The Yanks, the Brits and the French SOLD AND DELIVERED THE WMDs to Iraq. Good lord! Where do you think SadMan got the gas to kill his own people?

Here's a question... why were Bliar and Quackdaffy shaking hands not long after the invasion?

Hmmm... my front door cannot be opened because of the snow. I wish I had a WMD to clear it as I have a bad back. Must go mess with the snow and ignore the problems I cannot deal with.

Have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:39 PM

There were no WMD found. Period. However, when Iraq was about to be invaded the Iraqi army was working furiously to clean ALL areas where WMD may have been. Indeed, Hussein was projecting the picture that Iraq had them--and he was happy to do so. I am glad that piece of shit is dead. It was not about imperialism--it was about global terrorism. I think Rumsfeld was the biggest fuckup the US ever had as a defence secretary, and Cheney was little more than a capitalist SOB. Bush--other than being stupid and easily led by his SecDef and VP--had serious concerns, many based on erroneous information supplied by the CIA and other agencies who should have had spooks on the ground instead of depending on eyes in the skies. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 12:25 AM

Ah the MYTH season is back with us:

"The Yanks, the Brits and the French SOLD AND DELIVERED THE WMDs to Iraq."

Care to provide any examples of these weapons sales? And I mean the sale of weapons, not precursors sold for an entirely different purpose. The UK to my certain knowledge has possessed no chemical or biological weapons capability since the mid-1950's. Making chemical and biological warfare agents is relatively easy and they are required to test counter-measures and this work in the UK was performed at Porton Down. The tricky bit is to make them into weapons which of course you do not have to do purely for testing your defences against such weapons (you want to know that your suits and repirators work against the deployed agent)

"Good lord! Where do you think SadMan got the gas to kill his own people?"

The Iraqi's made it themselves. Just as easily as they made fertiliser.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 09:21 AM

Make up your mind, T...

During the inspections (remember them?) all we heard is that Saddam had to have WMDs because we had provided them to him???

So what's the new story???

Did we or didn't we...

Will ya'll ever get your stories straight??? If there was a criminal prosecution all this story flipping would be called "obstruction of justice"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 09:25 AM

The authors of Cobra II made a good case that Hussein got the weapons OUT of Iran before the invasion--the one called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The fact is he had none the invading Americans or British could locate. Nor did he use any on the US or UK when the invasion occurred. There were times the Americans really worried about the use of chem or bio weapons. It didn`t come to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 09:53 AM

Sorry--that should read Iraq. (And the likely receivers were Syria.)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 10:51 AM

"During the inspections (remember them?) all we heard is that Saddam had to have WMDs because we had provided them to him???

Where on earth did you hear that Bobert the same place you heard about all thos Patriot missiles raining down on Baghdad, or the heads on sticks thing.

neither the US or the UK gave Saddam any Weapons, let alone Weapons of Mass Destruction, I have yet to see, or read any evidence that contradicts that statement.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 11:45 AM

Bottom line, all rhetoric aside, the real problem was, they are squatting on OUR OIL!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 11:59 AM

[i]neither the US or the UK gave Saddam any Weapons, let alone Weapons of Mass Destruction, I have yet to see, or read any evidence that contradicts that statement. [/i]

They SOLD them a lot of stuff to make them with though. And that's well documented.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 12:21 PM

The "it was about oil" argument doesn't really stand up to the evidence.

In Op Iraqi Freedom, the push to protect oil wells was so that Iraq could pay for its restructuring and economic rebirth after Hussein was removed. If one looks at the numbers regarding US imports of oil, Iraq just ain't at the top of the list. In fact, it's down the list a ways.

However, people are gonna believe what the want. One of the beauties of democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:02 PM

They are not paying for reconstruction...we are. 10 billion dollars just vanished in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:15 PM

I agree with you that money disappears. As to where it is and who's got it--good luck finding out. I know lots went to an American-based company; they were selling meals at something like $18 each. However, wars on foreign soil tend to be expensive. However, the fact remains that oil seems not to be the issue. Hell, let's go into business and sell MREs--what Clancy called three lies for the price of one--at $15 each.

I'm not going to suggest that there was no graft in the last fiasco in Iraq. I will ask for support that it had to do with oil.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:46 PM

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]


Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 07:41 PM

Col. Larry Wilkerson chief of staff to the Sec. of State Colin Powell as well as Powell himself both said this week that the CIA informant "curveball" has recently admitted to lying to them both reagrding Saddmam's WMDs.

Not only that but the Iraqi informant known as curveball did not testify before Americans but instead to German coalition generals.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 08:01 PM

So, Amos, if yer facts are correct then the only thing we can assume is the T is full of sh*t???

Hey, we already knew that...

BTW, T... The heads on a stick was meant to be a joke... But, hey, I know you know that but I do appreciate you bringing it up... I loved that one and to have you bring it it makes me feel all sentimental... Sniff...

BTW, maybe we should attack someone else seein' as they have out ol' WMDs... Whaddayathink, T??? Maybe Syria??? Maybe a little "Shock % Awe" for Syria...

(But, Boberdz... Wasn't it Tony Baloney who provided that kids 20 year old term paper that go us into this mess???)

Okay, what if we bring a little "Shock & Awe" to Tony Baloney's neighborhood, T???

I mean, we ain't had no fisticuffs since 1812...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:41 AM

OK then Amos go through your list and erase everything that is NOT a weapon.

By the way what information do you need to "calibrate" a chemical of biological attack? How would US forces personnel or the CIA know about mounting chemical or biological attacks? Where does this expertise come from?

The answers to the above:

The first is a weather forecast plain and simple.

The second is they don't never having used either chemical or biological weapons they would know nothing in practical terms about mounting such an attack or about using these weapons.

The CIA and US Forces have no expertise in deployment or use of such weapons.

In my time in the British armed forces not once did I ever see any chemical or biological munitions. Not once did I ever read or was I given any instruction in the storage, arming or handling of chemical or biological weapons. As part of NATO had any country within NATO had such munitions we at some point or other would have had to handle them so we would have been trained to do so - plain truth is we got no such training or instruction.

"Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs."

OK Amos care to list all the other things such items could be used for? No thought not, if you have to clear what you allow anyone else to purchase on the premise of what the worst thing they could do with it then trade stops. The premise is ridiculous.

Statement made was that the US and the UK sold Saddam Hussein the weapons with which he gassed the Kurds.

That statement is untrue, they did not. What Iraq bought by deception through many front companies and through a maze of false corporations through many countries (This by the way Bobert is what that post-graduate student's plagiarised thesis was about) were "dual use" items that the Iraqi's had to gather together inside Iraq and manufacture themselves.

I will go through your list and knock each item down from your hype to what it actually was, you will find that you are left with nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:07 PM

Look, we KNOW they had WMD's.....we ought to know....we have the receipts!!!....We just can find them!!!....and once it provided a 'politically acceptable reason' to invade, nobody gives a shit anyway!...and when we pull out, nobody will give a shit that we were there..including the Iraqis or the radicals.
Happy now?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 01:16 AM

1. December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.

These are light unarmoured helicopters, the US sales were of civilian helicopters, not the military versions. Italian subsidiary of Bell Helicopters, Bell Textron, informs the US embassy in Rome that it has declined a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. [Source: BATTLE, 2/25/2003]. Just for information the 60 Helicopters were delivered in December 1983, not 1982.

2. 1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.

This is perfectly in line with US Foreign Policy for the region as defined by President Jimmy Carter and known internationally as the "Carter Doctrine".

3. November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.

Once again in line with established US Foreign Policy, US interests, the interests of US Allies in the Arabian Gulf and with the general thinking of the United Nations. No-one wanted an outright victor in the Iran/Iraq War. Ensuring that one side does not lose does not necessarily mean that you will do everything in your power to ensure that that side wins.

4. Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with chemical & biological weapons November, 1983.

I find it strange that anyone still offers this old chestnut up in discussion. It is as true as Iraqi soldiers pulling the plug on incubators in Kuwaiti Hospitals and the documentary evidence supplied to the US Intelligence Agencies by the British that Saddam attempted to buy Uranium Yellow Cake from Niger. Fact - Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein only ever met once. The actual meeting notes have been in the public domain now for years, and not once throughout the entire course of that 90 minute meeting are weapons for Iraq discussed, no weapons are offered, no weapons are requested. So I am sorry Amos but this dog just does not hunt - Donald Rumsfeld did not provide Iraq with chemical and biological weapons in November, 1983 or at any other time. The meeting by the way took place on the 20th of December, 1983 not November (That is a matter of record, but it illustrates the attention to detail paid by whatever source you used, they made a similar slip of one year with the helicopter delivery as well)

The purpose of Rumsfeld's visit was to attempt to re-establish diplomatic relations with Iraq and to also discusses US interest in the construction of the Iraq-Jordan Aqaba oil pipeline to be built by Bechtel.

Rumsfeld did not raise the subject of Iraqi use of chemical weapons with Saddam Hussein but he did mention to Tariq Aziz, Iraq's Foreign Minister in a separate meeting that US concerns about Iraq's chemical weapons, explaining that US "efforts to assist [Iraq]… [are] inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 01:28 AM

5. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

What supports the contention that these items were specifically purchased by Iraq for those areas with the knowledge and consent of the US Government? Absolutely nothing that I can see, and as previously stated those items have many uses for a country at war and under embargo from their main arms suppliers (The Soviets).

6. October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.

I very much doubt that US Artillery was exported by anyone to Iraq. Iraqi armed forces used Soviet and Warsaw Pact weapons and weapons systems with a few items of military hardware from France. To switch to US weapons would require retraining and re-jigging munitions plants to produce ammunition. The Huey helicopters were of no significant military value and the bombs provided were GP "dump" iron bombs supplied by Saudi Arabia. Now then Amos tell us what had been going on between 22nd September 1980 and October 1983.

In the first two years of the war Iraq seemed to be winning and in that time nothing in the form of help was given to the Iraqi's. Not wishing that any side should win meant that help had to given to the Iranians. The US wished to secure the release of hostages held by Iranian sponsored terrorists in Beirut who included one, William Buckley, the CIA Head of Station in Beirut. Without US knowledge or approval as early as December 1980 Israel started funnelling aircraft spares to Iran to keep their McDonald Douglas Phantom F-4's flying. In this instance it was Israel who was violating the Arms Export Control Act, not the US Government.

As 1982 wore on it was obvious that Iraq's early successes had reached a "high water" mark and that Iran was now looking like winning the conflict. A report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee put it, the choice was between permitting Iran to dominate the West's oil supply in the Persian Gulf and direct U.S. military intervention. The first was unacceptable and contrary to the dictates of the "Carter Doctrine" and the latter was undesirable and unpalatable. So some intermediate means had to be found so the US settled on the "Bear Spares" programme where Israeli and Egyptian stockpiles of Soviet and Warsaw Pact weaponry, useless to either state (The Egyptian armed forces were now re-arming with US weapons) were passed down to Iraq. The French at the same time "leased" Super Etendard strike aircraft to the Iraqi Air Force to boost their strike capability.

All of the above was done as a balancing act to ensure that no side "won the war".

7. November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

Wow, shock, horror and amazement!!! Bad men do nasty things with nasty weapons!!! What the hell do you think chemical and biological weapons are for if not to be used against your enemies in time of war? Chemical and Biological weapons were developed both as offensive weapons and as a defensive measure against the type of "human wave" attacks favoured by the Iranians. At this stage in their war Iraq was in a corner and desperate.

8. December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

Ah got the date right this time round - Amos that statement is a bit different from the contention you quoted above isn't it? Where are the proclamations about Rumsfeld handing over chemical and biological weapons? Or are we to just left to inference that the assurance of materials support automatically meant the supply of chemical and biological weapons that the US did not have. The material support that Saddam and Iraq received direct from the USA was pretty slight and amounted to intelligence and planning.

9. July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

In military terms this amounts to providing satellite information of troop deployments and weather forecasts.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 01:38 AM

10. January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.

"That can have" is the operative phrase here along with "civilian items".

11. March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

During this time no vetoes by either US or the UK were used.

Any possible connection here between the Security Council Resolution and the "blocking" activity being because of the resolution only condemning use of such weapons by only one side in the conflict, thereby leaving it perfectly legitimate for the otherside to deploy and use such weapons as they did in fact do?

UN condemnation would not have prevented the use of "biological weapons" as they were not covered by any convention or protocol at the time.

12. May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

"Biological exports" from the Centre for Disease Control (Is CDC a well known and reputed arms manufacturer Amos?) Or were these samples sent for research? If so what research was stated by the Iraqi Government? If 21 of the 70 were described as being lethal were the remaining 49 benign? CDC does not manufacture weapons so it can hardly be in the best position to export them, or is that a bit too logical and rational an argument to accept?

13. May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

Your thinking here Amos is that weapons grade must equate to weapons use right? That is why you included this gem.

Tell me Amos how would you test your chemical and biological defence systems and counter-measures? How would you know that they would be of any use? To undertake and carry-out these tests you have to have the very thing, or type of thing you are faced with.

To make chemical or biological agents is relatively simple, to weaponise them is extremely difficult, the west (NATO) gave up on that about fifty years ago.

In the UK the research establishment at Porton Down continued to make weapons grade agents long after the UK renounced the use of these weapons. All of the agents made at Porton Down and the research that went on there was required to test suits, respirators, seals and cleaning systems and develope antidotes.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 01:46 AM

14. March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages.

So to maintain one US policy vital to the national interest, the national interests of many valuable US allies in the region and to secure the release of hostages held by a terrorist organisation several US allies were allowed to infringe conditions of sale of items of equipment. All done to avoid the US getting directly involved in a war that could then have escalated. I would say that that was a rather good solution, wouldn't you?

15. Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

And the US could have known about this and stopped this how?

16. February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.

And the US could have known about this and stopped this how?

17. April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

What else are those chemicals used for? What did the Iraqi's say they were going to be used for? Who were the chemicals being sent to?

"Mustard gas may be made in different ways according to whether ethylene, vinyl chloride or thiodiglycol is chosen as the starting material. Published UN findings suggest that the Iraqi mustard had been made from the last of these precursors. Thiodiglycol is a quite widely used industrial commodity, finding application as an antioxidant, as a vulcanizing agent, as an intermediate for other commodities, and as a solvent for dyes used in the textile industry."

18. August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing.

Judging by points put previously this should come as no surprise to anybody Schultz knew about it since 1983 and DIA had been involved in providing Iraq with intelligence on Iranian intentions since 1982, so this seems no more than duplication and answers/reasons for US c-operation have already been given.

As for "Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925" That should of course be "First use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925". Which was why the augmenting treaty on Chemical Weapons was introduced in 1993.

And of course "by this time" allegations were rife that both sides were using Chemical weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 02:02 AM

By the bye GfS is perfectly correct in his post.

The USA and the UK and every other country that joined their coalition were only concerned with one thing, that Iraq was disarmed and that that disarmament could be verified - Not one single WMD had to be found to establish that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 10:51 PM

Oh, I'm sorry... I must have fallen off to sleep...

Carry on, T...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 10:54 PM

Teribus: "By the bye GfS is perfectly correct in his post."

Ahem..(**clears throat**)...You mean, 'POSTS'....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:49 AM

"Oh, I'm sorry... I must have fallen off to sleep..."

Of course you did Bobert it happens to you everytime logic, reason, rationality, commonsense, perspective or truth is injected into the discussion.

That does not in any way, shape, or form alter the fact that the accusation levelled at Donald Rumsfeld that he provided weapons to Saddam is completely baseless.

That does not in any way, shape, or form alter the fact that the United States of America supplied "the gas that killed the Kurds" (or anybody else for that matter).

Your world Bobert as we all know relies on Bobert Fact which again as we all know are not facts at all, through varying degrees you rely on lies, half-truths, misconceptions, misrepresentations and myths.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 08:13 AM

In psychology there's a condition known as "transference", T, whereby the sufferer will take his or her own conditions and not be able to see that condition in themselves but see it in everyone around them...

Given the way things have unfolded in Iraq it it me who is guilty of "lies, half-truths, misconceptions, misrepresentations and myths", ol' son... It is you...

Doctor Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 08:34 AM

WMD=BLT

Ali G figured this WMD, BLT thing out awhile ago.


"Has you had a puff before?"

"Yeah, I've had a puff before."

"We should talk business later."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 12:29 AM

I take it that a Psychiatrist carefully explained that to you Bobert?

Easily seen and demonstrated what "lies, half-truths, misconceptions, misrepresentations and myths" you peddle Bobert, two of them are clearly shown to be so in recent contributions to this thread.

IF Rumsfeld supplied Saddam with weapons or even discussed then you should be able to substantiate and prove that - The truth of the matter is that you cannot.

IF the USA supplied Saddam with the gas that killed the Kurds then you should be able to substantiate and prove that - The truth of the matter is that you cannot.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 06:19 PM

Well, T... It's this way... 12 years working with mentally ill people prepared me to deal with folks like, ahhhhhhh, you...

BTW, will you answer me this question??? Remember back when Han Blix -- remember him -- the war mongers were saying stuff like, "Prove you got rid of the stuff we gave you, Saddam"... I mean, there were pages and pages of stuff that the US said that Saddam had to have??? How would they know about that stuff if it didn't come from *US*???

Then there was the "Saddam gassed the Kurds" reason on why he was a bad man and why the war was necessary??? Where'd he get the gas??? Borrow it from the Iranians who he had been at war with??? No likely, T...

I'm worries about you, ol' son... You have slipped a cog 'er somethin'... You just ain't hittin' on all cylinders any more... Okay you never were but it's gotten worser...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 10:12 AM

"BTW, will you answer me this question??? Remember back when Han Blix -- remember him -- the war mongers were saying stuff like, "Prove you got rid of the stuff we gave you, Saddam"... I mean, there were pages and pages of stuff that the US said that Saddam had to have??? How would they know about that stuff if it didn't come from *US*???

Of course I will answer your question Bobert, it would be impolite not to. You will neither like it nor (perish the thought) accept it, but anyway here goes:

1. Which "warmongers ever said "Prove you got rid of the stuff we gave you".

I do not believe that that question was ever put by anybody.

I do believe that in accordance with UNSCR 1441 Saddam was asked to make a full declaration relating to WMD and WMD programmes in Iraq that request being made formally by the UN.

I do believe that Dr Hans Blix, Head of UNMOVIC, regarded the Iraqi Declaration delivered in December 2002 to be untruthful and false (which it did prove to be).

I do believe that Dr. Hans Blix and his team had a list of discrepancies between what precursor material had been delivered to Iraq and what had been allocated to the "end-user" use (e.g. fertilizer) and what had been diverted to the production of chemical weapons. There were discrepancies in munitions made and munitions expended or destroyed unsupervised.

But at no point in the process at anytime Bobert did anybody ever ask:

"Prove you got rid of the stuff we gave you".


2. "There were pages and pages of stuff that the US said that Saddam had to have??? How would they know about that stuff if it didn't come from the *US*???"

Unfortunately Bobert it wasn't the US who said that Saddam had to have the stuff was it? It was first UNSCOM (the organisation that Scott Ritter and Hans Blix worked for) and then UNMOVIC and even then they did not say that he HAD TO HAVE IT, UNSCOM's Report dated 19th January 1999 only went so far as detailing the discrepancies and what Saddam MAY STILL HAVE. Which sort of answers your question as to how the US knew what Saddam MAY STILL HAVE because the UN's weapons inspectors told them.

Last but not least we have:

"Saddam gassed the Kurds" Where'd he get the gas???

He made it Bobert, the Iraqi Authorities had bloody great factories churning the stuff out, he didn't have to buy it, or borrow it, all he had to do was make it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 11:49 AM

As to the title of this thread: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

OK. What were they and where are they.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 05:51 PM

There was never anything to fear from Saddam. Any supposed WMD that he might have patched together would not amount to anything. It was used as a pretext for Bush's invasion, pure and simple. Even Colin Powell admits he was had.

If there were any usable materials in Iraq that could have fashioned WMD's, they were
supplied by Bush Senior and the U.S. military so Saddam could win against Iran.
But UNSCOM did its job. Any attempt to manufacture a yellow cake of WMD's in Iraq
is risible.

Fear is the biggest motivator in the attempt to manufacture a straw-boogey-man.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 05:54 PM

"Fear is the biggest motivator in the attempt to manufacture a straw-boogey-man."

Well, fear and a good crop of hay . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 06:05 PM

Bobert: "Well, T... It's this way... 12 years working with mentally ill people prepared me to deal with folks like, ahhhhhhh, you..."

Well, well, well

Bobert: "In psychology there's a condition known as "transference", T, whereby the sufferer will take his or her own conditions and not be able to see that condition in themselves but see it in everyone around them...
Given the way things have unfolded in Iraq it it me who is guilty of "lies, half-truths, misconceptions, misrepresentations and myths", ol' son... It is you..."

And there is also something called 'deflection' and 'projection'..I'm sure if you are educated in Psych, you'd understand why I brought those up! Your posts are comprised largely of these two mechanisms, professionally speaking, that is.
..by the way, could your persona of the 'hillbilly-hick' be part of deflection?...as to say, (and/or deflect) anything 'directly aimed at you', never gets through personally, but rather only applies to your fictional alter ego?...which, of course, makes 'denial' an implemented 'avoidance' of getting REAL with anybody?? What are you trying to protect?..Possibly, a conscious error in your 'political mind's' thinking??..another ruse for personal responsibility?

No slam intended, Ol' Chap...but if you're going to conceal where you're coming from, don't forget to hide your tracks.....but you knew that already, didn't you?

Now, it's only up to you, which persona you chose to have those questions addressed to??
How convenient.
Gotcha!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 06:17 PM

Anyway, going twice:

"As to the title of this thread: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

OK. What were they and where are they."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 06:31 PM

I'm not too sure exactly what it is you said, GfinS, but it was entertainin' what ever it was...

Yo, T... You don't recall Donnie Rumsfeld going to visit Saddam after the Iraqi-Iranian War and taking him gifts for all the help he'd been fir bein' a good little dictator for US???

Maybe you'd like to furnish us with the list of military hardware that the US supplied Saddam with during that war??? I mean, you don't have to remember it all seein' as you got early half-heimerzs... I mean, you can Google it up... That ain't cheatin', 'er nuthin'... Maybe y6ou come back and share the list of weaponry with us...

But please don't come back with more denials and smoke 'n mirrors... I mean, I understand why you want to rewrite the entire last 8 years... I would, too, had I been on the wrong side of history but I was on the correct side of history...

Guess what, T... Ya' give??? Had the US not wasted a trillion $$$$, trashed its international reputation with the invasion of Iraq, not killed 3000+ of our brothers and sisters. maimed another 40,000 and killed upwards of a 1,000,000 Iraqis then tonight we'd be watchin' Saddam being overthrown...

See... You were on the wrong side of history... I tried to tell ya' but yer head is like granite...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 06:43 PM

Bobert: "I'm not too sure exactly what it is you said, GfinS, but it was entertainin' what ever it was..."

You just demonstrated 'avoidance' and 'deflection'....next mechanism would be, 'denial'.

I'm willing to wager, that you more than likely have drinking issues, as well, in which you would be well acquainted with "transference", which then goes to 'co-dependency', where you probably tend to deal with other people's problems, to avoid dealing with your own.

Now watch, you'll 'deflect' again, playing the ignorant, simple hillbilly......and of course, none of what I posted will conveniently not make sense to you.

Gotcha twice!

Wink!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 11:40 PM

Sorry, 'Guest 999'....We SHOULD go back to the thread topic, but this time I had a chance to bust Bobert, in a nice way, so maybe he might re-examine the 'whys' and 'whats' he postulates on. Perhaps, he may even be open to, at least, another side of honest reasoning..possibly yours.

Wink,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 12:33 AM

Pssst Bobert Donald Rumsfeld only met Saddam Hussein ONCE and that was on 20th December 1983, right in the middle of the Iran/Iraq War. That meeting lasted for 90 minutes and weapons were not discussed let alone offered or requested - All of that is a simple matter of record.

A list of weapons supplied to Saddam Hussein's regime by the USA is not only very short it is non-existant. The USA did not supply weapons to Iraq although it did, along with Israel supply Iran.

"Bear Spares" were a means of US allies (Israel & Egypt) getting rid of ex-Soviet/Warsaw Pact arms which were then replaced by equipment from the USA.

If all those supposed arms were to ensure that Iraq "WON" the war then the US did not do too good a job did it? - NOBODY won the Iran/Iraq War and that was precisely the result that the USA and the rest of the world wanted.

To answer Guest999's question I would refer you to "beardedbruce's" contributions. As to Iraq and Uranium Yellow Cake in March 2003 it held in storage 500 tons of the stuff, 384 Rocket Motors were discovered and proscribed development of missiles was established, just as British intelligence said it would based on photographic interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 12:51 AM

Stringsinger:

"There was never anything to fear from Saddam."

The US Administrations of Bill Clinton and George W Bush did not agree with your reading of the situation - Clinton half-heartedly tried to address the problem after having identified it, George W Bush put the matter beyond all doubt and in doing so uncovered three "secret" nuclear weapons programmes and shut down a highly dangerous and illegal nuclear weapons proliferation network.

"If there were any usable materials in Iraq that could have fashioned WMD's, they were supplied by Bush Senior and the U.S. military so Saddam could win against Iran."

Nope "dual use" items were purchased from a whole host of countries through front companies and third parties. As stated previously Iraq did not win the war.

"Any attempt to manufacture a yellow cake of WMD's in Iraq
is risible."

Whole-heartedly agree with that. Iraq does not, nor ever has, manufactured yellow cake, they have always imported it. Looking at it logically the quantities of ore that you would have to transport to manufacture uranium yellow cake would be enormous - The yellow cake Stringsinger is made where the ore is mined.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 12:54 AM

Guest999 go to the opening posts of this thread for some detail relating to WMD's actually found - Saddam remember had said that they had all been destroyed, many times.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 01:39 AM

: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!......The U.S. Military!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 08:56 AM

Can't argue with that, Gfs-er...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:19 PM

I must be doing some good, eh?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 06:23 PM

I wouldn't go that far...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 12:40 AM

"please don't come back with more denials and smoke 'n mirrors... I mean, I understand why you want to rewrite the entire last 8 years... I would, too, had I been on the wrong side of history but I was on the correct side of history..."

Only thing is Bobert it is you who have rewritten history isn't it?

Examples:

1. The famous "Gold Plated" M-16 that Rumsfeld was supposed to have given Saddam - But didn't

2. The chemical and biological weapons that Rumsfeld was supposed to have given Saddam - But didn't

3. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam after the end of the Iran-Iraq War where these weapon sales were arranged and agreed - But no such meeting ever took place

Inconveniently for Bobert I can substantiate and verify my version of history, which is a damn sight more than he can do for his.