Rumsfeld drops his clanger!

[Jon_in_london]

Oops!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2940580.stm



In the same speech, Mr Rumsfeld acknowledged that Iraq may have destroyed all its chemical munitions and weapons of mass destruction before the US-led invasion last March.



But never mind, we'll be invading Iran soon, so you wont have time to consider the implication of this.........

[Graham]

Oddly enough this part of the speech was reported on the BBC and Reuters this morning but there's no mention of it on CNN or FoxNews*

What's that about?

Graham



* Though I didn't spend a HUGE amount of time checking so I stand ready to be corrected.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Oops!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2940580.stm



But never mind, we'll be invading Iran soon, so you wont have time to consider the implication of this.........


The backtracking has started....methinks a new war is required to completely eliminate from peoples minds how wrong/falsified (choose your preferred word) the intelligence was on this one.:rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Duly noted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3024359.stm



which helped set the agenda for the war against Iraq, has admitted to being surprised at the failure of US and British forces to find chemical weapons in Iraq.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London issued a report in September last year about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, saying that Iraq probably had "a few hundred tons" of mustard gas, precursors for other agents and VX gas from earlier stocks.

It was the first major report on Iraqi capabilities and proved helpful to Washington and London as they made their own cases against Iraq in the following weeks.

At the launching of its annual Strategic Survey, Dr Gary Samore, one of the experts who wrote the Iraq report, accepted that neither chemical weapons nor the munitions to deliver them had been found, nor were likely to be found in large quantities, despite the predictions of the IISS and the British and US governments.

"The absence of chemical weapons was a big surprise," he said.



Not taking Saddams side, but he is the kind of guy to like where he was before the war more than where he is now.

[Genghis Pwn]

http://a.abcnews.com/media/FrontPage/images/mobile_weapons_030507_nh.jpg

[Graham]

What's that supposed to be?

[fsol]

http://a.abcnews.com/media/FrontPage/images/mobile_weapons_030507_nh.jpg

I suppose that because the file name says so it *must* be a mobile weapon. But who does it belong to? Where is it? What type of weapon is it? What is your point?

Editted to add emphasis.

[Jon_in_london]

ARRRGHHH!!!!
Its a weapon of mass desTRUCKtion!!!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
http://a.abcnews.com/media/FrontPage/images/mobile_weapons_030507_nh.jpg
I assume that by posting this pic you are suggesting that this truck, in which no trace of chemical or biological weapons were found, but which could have been a mobile lab is a WMD? Not even the US is making that claim any more.

And I'm curious about your avatar. Is that a female impersonator? I really can't tell from the angle of the photo.

[bjornart]

Yeah, posting pics of trailers is a good tactic, especially when the article is titled Insufficient Evidence (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_WMD030521.html)

A U.S. intelligence report on the trailers, portions of which were read to ABCNEWS, said: "Biological weapons agent production is the only consistent, logical purpose for these vehicles."

I'd claim researcher bias, but I'm biased...

After Powell had made his presentation on such trailers in February, the Iraqis said they had mobile labs, but they were not used for weapons.
Such mobile labs were used for food analysis for disease outbreaks, mobile field hospitals, a military field bakery, food and medicine refrigeration trucks, a mobile military morgue and mobile ice making trucks, Iraqi officials said.
Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, said inspectors visited a number of the labs at several sites but found no evidence of chemical or biological weapons activity.
"The outline and characteristics of these trucks that we inspected were all consistent with the declared purposes," Buchanan told The AP, adding extensive forensic sampling had been performed.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Oops!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2940580.stm



But never mind, we'll be invading Iran soon, so you wont have time to consider the implication of this.........


Sorry.. It doesn't really seem like a good idea to put the Hussein regime back in power..


Oh, well.. On to the next murderous despot.. WMDs seems like a pretty good exuse to start with... ( Hey, might as well stick with what works....)

[Jon_in_london]

Diogenes, I think its a good thing Saddam has been taken out. He was a fooking cnut and deserved it. But Im worried about things when we go to war to get those evil WMDs and then a month or two later one of our(your) beloved leaders basically admits that they never existed. Doesnt this disturb you?

War on Iran = Weapon of mass distraction.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Oh, well.. On to the next murderous despot..

Naah, let's just vote him out.

Your Scoutmaster is gay.

[Genghis Pwn]

LOL at Saddam building those mobile labratories to help his people with "disease outbreaks, mobile field hospitals, a military field bakery, food and medicine refrigeration trucks, a mobile military morgue and mobile ice making trucks."

Haha. Yeah, sure.

In time the truth will come out about Saddam's WMD programs. Until then, I suggest you bite your tongues, Bush haters.

Whoever asked about my av, no that is not a tranny, you sicko. :o

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
LOL at Saddam building those mobile labratories to help his people with "disease outbreaks, mobile field hospitals, a military field bakery, food and medicine refrigeration trucks, a mobile military morgue and mobile ice making trucks."

Haha. Yeah, sure.
But the simple fact remains that there is no trace of chemical or biological weapons. They either were for some other purpose, or the weapons were destroyed, as demanded.

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
In time the truth will come out about Saddam's WMD programs. Until then, I suggest you bite your tongues, Bush haters.
With all the "evidence" for their existance, one would think they would have been found easily. And yet the clock ticks away. Many pro-war advocates have already abandoned the "WMD reason" for the war and now started claiming it was about human rights.

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Whoever asked about my av, no that is not a tranny, you sicko. :o
It was me. And I was just curious. The person is not very "curvy" and seems to be protecting her adams-apple region. I would not hold it against you if you find female impersonators attractive. To each his own.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Diogenes, I think its a good thing Saddam has been taken out. He was a fooking cnut and deserved it. But Im worried about things when we go to war to get those evil WMDs and then a month or two later one of our(your) beloved leaders basically admits that they never existed. Doesnt this disturb you?




Exactly why are you worried? Do you suspect The U.S. is planning on starting it's own evil empire?

And no, it doesn't disturb me.. It sounded good at the time, and like you say: " I think its a good thing Saddam has been taken out. He was a fooking cnut and deserved it. "

[Crossbow]

Anyone else catch that Rumsfeld had the Whopper of the Week in Slate?

For those of you who may have missed, here you go.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2083532/

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."

—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16

[Ladewig]

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons." —Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, May 14

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." —Vice President Dick Cheney, March 16

Rumsfeld is not lying if he actually BELIEVES it was never said.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Rumsfeld is not lying if he actually BELIEVES it was never said.

Of course not and I ask all to behold the true mark of back-pedaling!

After some 100 billion dollars has been spent,
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, have been killed,
Billions more and years to rebuild,

Now comes the arguing over fine points of meaning.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Exactly why are you worried? Do you suspect The U.S. is planning on starting it's own evil empire?

And no, it doesn't disturb me.. It sounded good at the time, and like you say: " I think its a good thing Saddam has been taken out. He was a fooking cnut and deserved it. "

Imagine Joe hates bob because bob is a cnut. Then one day joe cant find his wallet. Blaming it on bob and accussing bob of theft of the aforementioned article- joe beats bob to death.

Fair enough, bob was a cnut and a he stole joes wallet. But hold on! wheres joe's wallet? bob doesnt have it does he! Oops (analogy in danger of breaking down completely).

Doesnt it disturb you that your government has misled you?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Imagine Joe hates bob because bob is a cnut. Then one day joe cant find his wallet. Blaming it on bob and accussing bob of theft of the aforementioned article- joe beats bob to death.

Fair enough, bob was a cnut and a he stole joes wallet. But hold on! wheres joe's wallet? bob doesnt have it does he! Oops (analogy in danger of breaking down completely).

Broke down at " ..Imagine Joe hates bob "..


Doesnt it disturb you that your government has misled you?

In this case ( WMD?), no... ( I think I said that ..)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Of course not and I ask all to behold the true mark of back-pedaling!

After some 100 billion dollars has been spent,
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, have been killed,
Billions more and years to rebuild,

Now comes the arguing over fine points of meaning.


O.K.. Korea, Viet Nam, Boznia, Samolia... They may have been mistakes, and we're still trying to find meaning and justify the cost, but I thought we were talking about Iraq?:confused:

[corplinx]

The reason the US media isn't jumping on this story is because some of the Iraqi top brass we captured said that they destroyed the wmd after te 48 hour ultimatum was given. This was reported like 2 weeks ago. Hardly backtracking, but the anti-bush BBC (the jessica lynch hoax, the afghanistan war coverage, et al) will portray it that way probably.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Oh, well.. On to the next murderous despot.. WMDs seems like a pretty good exuse to start with... ( Hey, might as well stick with what works....)


Yeah, once we get rid of the others, we'll be the only "murderous despot" left with all the WMDs...!

:rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by dsm


Yeah, once we get rid of the others, we'll be the only "murderous despot" left with all the WMDs...!

:rolleyes:


Sounds like a good place to be..:)

P.S.

War is a terrible thing.. But, until our saviour returns, and brings peace and good will to all, it's nice to be on the winning side.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
The reason the US media isn't jumping on this story is because some of the Iraqi top brass we captured said that they destroyed the wmd after te 48 hour ultimatum was given. This was reported like 2 weeks ago. Hardly backtracking, but the anti-bush BBC (the jessica lynch hoax, the afghanistan war coverage, et al) will portray it that way probably.
They destroyed them but didn't show us the evidence (like video, the wreckage etc.) which would have saved them from invasion? There is something extremely fishy about this story. Let those "top brass" tell us where those "destroyed weapons" were. That should make the search for evidence a lot easier.

....(sound of crickets)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by corplinx
The reason the US media isn't jumping on this story is because some of the Iraqi top brass we captured said that they destroyed the wmd after te 48 hour ultimatum was given.

Destroyed them how? I suspect you know that destroying these things isn't a matter of flushing them down the toilet. HOW did they destroy all the WMD's, without a trace of evidence left, in 48 hours?

Admit that this is unlikely at best.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Sundog

Destroyed them how? I suspect you know that destroying these things isn't a matter of flushing them down the toilet. HOW did they destroy all the WMD's, without a trace of evidence left, in 48 hours?


Maybe they got some pointers from David Copperfield or Lance Burton or ... James Randi ... !! :eek:

;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Rumsfeld is not lying if he actually BELIEVES it was never said.

Plausible deniability. The great invention of Tricky Dicky?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes

War is a terrible thing.. But, until our saviour returns, and brings peace and good will to all, it's nice to be on the winning side.


Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"? :p

[Libertarian]

You have to admit one thing. The administration's coining of the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a PR coup of biblical proportions.

Why, look at the posts above. Even the anti-Bush crowd is using the term without irony!

"WMD" put things like chemical weapons and anthrax on the same level as nuclear bombs!

Anyone know who coined the term, and when?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Sundog


Destroyed them how? I suspect you know that destroying these things isn't a matter of flushing them down the toilet. HOW did they destroy all the WMD's, without a trace of evidence left, in 48 hours?

Admit that this is unlikely at best.

I didnt say it, they did. Of course there would be evidence but finding it in such a large country might be difficult. The point is, the government is now taking this into consideration.

[a_unique_person]

I must say, 10/10 for the thread title.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Tricky

They destroyed them but didn't show us the evidence (like video, the wreckage etc.) which would have saved them from invasion? There is something extremely fishy about this story. Let those "top brass" tell us where those "destroyed weapons" were. That should make the search for evidence a lot easier.

....(sound of crickets)

Hmmm, were you this skeptical about that same exact claim when Iraq first made it months before the war?

*EDIT* This is directed at all those who scoff at the idea of the Iraqis destroying the weapons just before the bombs dropped, not just Tricky.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by dsm


Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"? :p

Since you brought it up, you can be in charge of that department..:)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by ssibal


Hmmm, were you this skeptical about that same exact claim when Iraq first made it months before the war?

*EDIT* This is directed at all those who scoff at the idea of the Iraqis destroying the weapons just before the bombs dropped, not just Tricky.

Just to butt in here, but personally I'm not as doubtful of Iraq's earlier claim. There's a large difference between destroying a sizeable quantity of biological or chemical weapons over a long period of time and then suppress (or merely not protect) the evidence of this, and of destroying a sizeable quantity of biological or chemical weapons in 48 hours and getting rid of all the evidence in a few weeks time, during a war.

[a_unique_person]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm



WMD emphasis was 'bureaucratic'


The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons", according to the US deputy defence secretary.
But in an interview with the American magazine Vanity Fair, Paul Wolfowitz said there were many other important factors as well.

The famously hawkish Mr Wolfowitz has been a long-time proponent of military action against Iraq.

Picking weapons of mass destruction was "the one reason everyone could agree on", he says in the interview.

The other factor he describes as "huge" was that an attack would allow the US to pull its troops from Saudi Arabia, thereby resolving a major grievance held by al-Qaeda.



So, he is saying it was all just PR.

Also, the other reason was they had to move the troops out of Saudi, they couldn't just bring the troops home?

The reasons for the invasion just get lamer all the time.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I must say, 10/10 for the thread title.

:D

[Kevin_Lowe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the US government's excuse for invading that Iraq hadn't destroyed their chemical/biological weapons?

Now the US's story is that they really did destroy them like they agreed to? Huh? It sounds like they are coming right out and admitting that the war had no legal justification.

Do I get a million dollars for predicting that the USians on this board will still not understand why the US is not popular with the people of the Middle East?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by corplinx
...the anti-bush BBC...

:rotflmao:

Hoo boy, that's a good one!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by ssibal


Hmmm, were you this skeptical about that same exact claim when Iraq first made it months before the war?
No. In my innocence, I actually believed that US intelligence had information on the location and nature of WMDs. It is only since the war ended that I have come the realization that we were lied to. Before the war, Iraq was counting on the fact that the inspectors had not found anything significant to forstall the invasion. I guess they were pretty foolish too.

Originally posted by ssibal
*EDIT* This is directed at all those who scoff at the idea of the Iraqis destroying the weapons just before the bombs dropped, not just Tricky.
What I scoff at is the idea that in such a short time the Iraqis could destroy their WMDs so completely and without a trace, that even the "top brass" cannot point us to where they were. They would have to have been working at this for a long time. Oh wait! Isn't that what we asked them to do?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the US government's excuse for invading that Iraq hadn't destroyed their chemical/biological weapons?


Yup, It was supposed to be a pre-emptive strike. We had to go get them before they rained down on New york and london! I remember blair telling us how saddam had WMD that could be launched against us at 45 mins notice!
He just made that up, obviously, guys a pathological liar!

[fsol]

That backtrack in full.

http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html

[asi_gonia]

Jon, love the title of the post.

Anyway......The real reason for the war is being revealed by the neo-con hawks themselves. Pity that most of the US public couldn't see it coming, when the rest of the world could. However, the feeling that I get is that most pro-war activists (on this board and elsewhere) change there excuses when they see it fit to do so.

Sure, you got rid of Saddam. And replaced it with what ?? Anarchy ?.

Now they have their sites on Iran. Iran supposedly support Al Kaeda fugitives. They supposedly are ready to produce nukes.....yadiyadayadiyadaya.......same s**t different smell.


Look through the bulls**t people.......

[ssibal]

I agree, I do not believe they destroyed the weapons 48 hours before the war just like I did not believe they destroyed them months before. If the U.S. is going to claim that Iraq destroyed the weapons I expect them to provide evidence just like I expeted Iraq to provide evidence, otherwise they should keep searching.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by asi_gonia

Look through the bulls**t people.......

What plan do you propose? Hey, I know! Greece can get everybody together for a track & field event.

Damn, we already do that don't we? Now what?:rolleyes:

[dsm]

Originally posted by ssibal

I agree, I do not believe they destroyed the weapons 48 hours before the war just like I did not believe they destroyed them months before. If the U.S. is going to claim that Iraq destroyed the weapons I expect them to provide evidence just like I expeted Iraq to provide evidence, otherwise they should keep searching.


But wait! Look over here at Iran! :eek:


"Here we suddenly discover that Iran is much further along, with a far more robust nuclear weapons development programme than anyone said it had," Mr Powell said on US television.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2835091.stm

:rolleyes: