Reuters: US Intel 'Simply Wrong' on Chemical Attack-General

[shanek]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2853061

U.S. intelligence was "simply wrong" in leading military commanders to believe their troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons in the Iraq war, the top U.S. Marine general there said on Friday.

[...]

"We were simply wrong," he said of the assessment that chemical shells or other weapons were ready in southern Iraq and likely to be used against invaders by deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's forces.

Conway said he was convinced when U.S. and British troops swept into Iraq from Kuwait that they would come under chemical or biological attack before they reached Baghdad.

But such shells have not been found even in ammunition storage sites, he told reporters.

"It was a surprise to me then. It remains a surprise to me now that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites," said Conway.

"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been through virtually every ammunition supply site between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad. But they're simply not there."

[zakur]

Wolfowitz interview draws fire (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/151/nation/Wolfowitz_interview_draws_fire+.shtml)

European critics of the Iraq war expressed shock yesterday at published remarks by a senior US official that seemed to play down the importance of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going to war.

In an interview in the upcoming issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited bureaucratic reasons for focusing on Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal.

''The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason,'' Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of the interview.

Vanity Fair provided a slightly different version in the article: ''For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.''

...

In London, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit as leader of the House of Commons to protest the war, said he doubted Iraq had such weapons.

''The war was sold on the basis of what was described as a preemptive strike: `Hit Saddam before he hits us,' '' Cook told the BBC. ''It is now quite clear that Saddam did not have anything with which to hit us in the first place.''

[zakur]

Powell Defends Information He Used to Justify Iraq War (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/31/international/worldspecial/31POWE.html?ex=1054958400&en=6d0f444e82a4533b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

ASHINGTON, May 30 — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell today fiercely defended the intelligence used by the Bush administration to justify war against Iraq, saying he spent several late nights poring over the Central Intelligence Agency's reports because he knew the credibility of the country and the president were at stake.

The C.I.A.'s prewar assessments have been sharply questioned by some intelligence officials and lawmakers in recent days, as American forces have uncovered only limited evidence of unconventional weapons programs and Iraqi ties to terrorists.

After complaints from intelligence officials that they felt Defense Department pressure to support the administration on Iraq, the C.I.A. has started a review to determine whether its prewar assessments of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs were accurate.

Another top official, George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, insisted today that his agency's work had not been compromised by politics.

...

Asked today if he thought those assessments had been politicized to bolster the administration's call to arms, Mr. Powell said no, calling it "solid information" based on multiple sources presented to him by unbiased analysts.

"I went out to the C.I.A., and I spent four days and four nights going over everything that they had," Mr. Powell told reporters traveling on Air Force One to Poland. For three consecutive nights, the chore kept him at the agency until midnight, he said. "I knew that it was the credibility of the United States that was going to be on the line on the fifth of February. The credibility of the president of the United States and my credibility."

...

Mr. Powell argued today that the accuracy of the prewar assessments was proven by the discovery of two Iraqi trailers that the C.I.A. and Pentagon have concluded were designed to produce deadly germs. Mr. Powell presented drawings of suspected mobile biological labs to the United Nations in February.

[Jon_in_london]

Whats with all the quotes?

[Nasarius]

And it all comes crashing down...a lot sooner than I expected, too.

[Nasarius]

More quotage:

"The American people were manipulated," bluntly declares one person from the Defense Intelligence Agency who says he was privy to all the intelligence there on Iraq. These people are coming forward because they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world — that such work should be nonpolitical — and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propagandists.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/30/nyt.kristof/index.html

[ssibal]

I guess this means we should put back Saddam and his government in power.....:rolleyes:

Funny how they leave out this part of the Wolfowitz interview:
... -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.

http://www.pentagon.gov/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
I guess this means we should put back Saddam and his government in power.....:rolleyes:

Another blatant strawman from one of our resident jingoists.

[Fade]

Originally posted by shanek


Another blatant strawman from one of our resident jingoists.


I bet you are hiding Saddam at your house :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Fade
I bet you are hiding Saddam at your house :D

SSSHHHHH!!!!!! :eek: :D

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek


SSSHHHHH!!!!!! :eek: :D

I don't watch TV anymore. How is all this playing out on TV? Are the news stations giving a fair accessment of all this or is it still just rah, rah, rah, the Hollywood liberals are stupid, Bush rules?

The bad part is how all the people trying to point out the truth from the begniing got so shot down and steam rolled.

The reason that people like me were against the war was becuase it was obvious that the administration was lying. One is not inclined to support liars, even if they are "lying for all the right reasons". Because if there really are right reasons it would seem that they should be able to justify their points w/o lying.

Okay, the truth, he's a bad guy stitting on top of a lot of oil, so we are justified in taking him out to claim the oil.

The whole things stinks on so many levels beyond what the average jingot even go into, which is why I wrote the paper I did, to exaplain in depth how and why America was able to be manipulated in the first place.

The problem here is not really the war its the obviousness that Americans can be manipulated, and by whom.

I lost my trust in American leaders long ago, but they seem to just reinforce my lack of faith with every passing year, and yes I'm on Clinton's side in that scandal, it really shows how the conservatives manipulated that issue. And again, I think that the Clinton scandal was done the way it was as a part of the goal for waging war on Iraq in the first place.

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and crew have been wanting to wage war on Iraq for years now. American leaders don't discuss the real geopolical situation with America, which is why they had to lie abotu WMD, because the average Americna is so out of touch with reality, living in the fake world of lies that they have created, the black and white dualistic view that the religous have cultivated. They can't explain the geopolitcal situation w/i going into philisophical issues that would shock the average American mind, so they just keep lying. That is the definition of fascism in my book.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Another blatant strawman from one of our resident jingoists.

Calm down, it was a joke. But seriously, I do not think you could consider the removal of Saddam and his government a bad thing even if it was for the 'wrong' reasons.

[Underemployed]

I was utterly against the war because it was based on lies, though I always thought getting rid of Saddam was a good thing.

If they or anyone else wants future support, they must follow their own arguments to a logical conclusion - Invade Congo! Set things straight in Columbia - and every other country in the world that isn't quite right. Let's see some solid conviction behind the quest to rid the world of evil! I might even fight for that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Underemployed
I was utterly against the war because it was based on lies, though I always thought getting rid of Saddam was a good thing.

If they or anyone else wants future support, they must follow their own arguments to a logical conclusion - Invade Congo! Set things straight in Columbia - and every other country in the world that isn't quite right. Let's see some solid conviction behind the quest to rid the world of evil! I might even fight for that.

Thats the last thing they want.

The war, it is clear, was not about WMD or people being opressed. It has had no effect on the war against terror. So what was it about.

That leaves Oil and Political imperialism.

[a_unique_person]

According to this article, Powell didn't really accept the quality of the evidence.



The controversy over the quality of intelligence used to justify the Iraq war flared yesterday after reports that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the information.

Britain's Guardian newspaper reported that the two discussed their concern that intelligence on Iraq's weapons program could not be proved. This was at a private meeting in New York, just before a crucial Security Council session on February 5.

The report, which has been rejected as "untrue" by the British Foreign Office, came as:

The former head of worldwide intelligence gathering for the US Defence Intelligence Agency, Patrick Lang, said the organisation had been "exploited and abused and bypassed" in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

The top US Marine Corps officer in Iraq, Lieutenant-General James Conway, said US intelligence was "simply wrong" in leading commanders to fear attacks with chemical weapons during the March invasion.



advertisement

advertisement

Deputy US Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz admitted in a magazine article that "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one . . . everyone could agree on" to publicly justify the war.

Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA chief of counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who believed it was a scandal that the Pentagon played up "fraudulent" intelligence.

The Guardian quoted a diplomatic source who it claimed had seen a transcript of the 10-minute discussion between Mr Straw and Mr Powell at the Waldorf Hotel, where both expressed concerns that intelligence reports were mainly assumptions and assessments not supported by hard facts or other sources.

Mr Powell reportedly said he had come away from briefings by the Pentagon's office of special plans, set up by Mr Wolfowitz, "apprehensive" about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence tilted in favour of assessments drawn from the office itself, rather than actual raw intelligence.



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/31/1054177767278.html

[Jedi Knight]

It simply doesn't matter if US intelligence was wrong about an imminent chemical attack and that US Marine General Officer was not the brightest bulb in the tulip patch for bringing it up.

If chemical weapons weren't a problem, why bother issuing cumbersome gear to soldiers to protect from it?

It is a General Officer's job to plan for military surprises and the unknown on the battlefield. Giving an opinion about US Intelligence assessment of possible battlefield conditions after the fact is an issue above his pay grade and he should STFU.

The reason he should STFU about that is because every moron from here to North Korea will latch onto that and give Saddam's regime sympathy, after the fact that Saddam used those weapons against his own people. To go to war with Iraq and not think Saddam would use them against the military force of the "Great Satan" is naive military planning.

Imagine, if you will, what would have happened to the world if Saddam used chemical weapons against our troops on the battlefield and they weren't prepared for it. That general would be the first to whine that he "wasn't informed" and US intelligence would be blamed. It is a lose/lose situation either way.

BTW, weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq according to Tony Blair.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

BTW, weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq according to Tony Blair.

JK
cool, when and where was this announced?

[Underemployed]

This has been said:

Prime Minister Tony Blair last night insisted he had secret proof that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq in his strongest signal yet that coalition forces believe they may have begun to uncover leads to Iraq's alleged deadly arms cache.

Stung by claims that the Government exaggerated the threat from Saddam, Blair said he was waiting to publish a 'complete picture' of both intelligence gained before the war and 'what we've actually found'.

Asked if he knew things he could not yet reveal, he said: 'I certainly do know some of the stuff that has been already accumulated as a result of interviews and others... which is not yet public, but what we are going to do is assemble that evidence and present it properly.'

Observer 1st June 2003

So there you have it, all the proof we need. Oh my yes.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

cool, when and where was this announced?

Yesterday.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Yesterday.

JK
Are you relying on the same quote that Underemployed cited? There seems to be a bit of a difference between "Have been found" and "secret evidence that they will be found" do you have another source?

[Genghis Pwn]

JK is correct.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
JK is correct.
well, that settles it....what more proof could I possibly ask for :rolleyes:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

Are you relying on the same quote that Underemployed cited? There seems to be a bit of a difference between "Have been found" and "secret evidence that they will be found" do you have another source?

Sources and methods.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Sources and methods.

JK
Lol.... Are you pathologically incapable of answering a simple request to support the things that you expect people to accept as facts?

Did Tony Blair say that WMD have been found or not.....and where did you learn of this. Is that too much to ask? I have no doubt that he may have said it but because its from you, I automatically assume you have made it up. Is there any reason that I shouldn't assume the same here?

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Calm down, it was a joke. But seriously, I do not think you could consider the removal of Saddam and his government a bad thing even if it was for the 'wrong' reasons.

I wouldn't, but the ends don't justify the means.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Prime Minister Tony Blair last night insisted he had secret proof

Isn't that an oxymoron? If it's secret, how can it be proof?

Stung by claims that the Government exaggerated the threat from Saddam, Blair said he was waiting to publish a 'complete picture' of both intelligence gained before the war and 'what we've actually found'.

And what, exactly, is he waiting for?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek

And what, exactly, is he waiting for?

They haven't finished fabricating the evidence yet :)

Sorry, but these guys have no credibility. I won't believe anything they. I've already poven that virtually every statement from the Bush administration is a lie, not just on war, but on evrything, taxes, environmental policy, healthcare, his own past, the laws being past in the wake of 9/11, everything. You pick any topic that the Bush administration has talked about publicly and I'll show you major lies and deceptions. Bush and Blair are in cahoots, so they both have zero credibility.

And, if I were an General I would not appreciate being lied to by my superiors either, oh wait, that's standard procedure....

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

— Adolph Hitler

Gotta get my Hitler quota in for the day ;)

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


I wouldn't, but the ends don't justify the means.

I guess that is where we differ, though I am still waiting for the one year mark to evaluate the WMD claims.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
I guess that is where we differ, though I am still waiting for the one year mark to evaluate the WMD claims.

Even if they don't actually find any WMDs, I would still let them off the hook if they could a) present the evidence that they claimed they had, and b) provide evidence that they had this evidence at the time they claimed to have had it. What possible reason could there be for withholding the evidence now that they're in control of Iraq?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

If chemical weapons weren't a problem, why bother issuing cumbersome gear to soldiers to protect from it?



Verisimilitude

[jj]

Originally posted by Ed


Verisimilitude

All Hail Ed!

And, I dare say, Ed's answer seems pretty on the mark.

Ed for moderator!

[Ed]

Originally posted by jj


All Hail Ed!

And, I dare say, Ed's answer seems pretty on the mark.

Ed for moderator!

Thank you, thank you Ladies and Germs....

Also, consider the charade of the "poison gas" drills ... Suit up, suit down etc. Even the reporters, oh my. They must have been pretty darn concerned. Even our buddys in Isreal sealing rooms up and all. Very convincing. There must have been a threat otherwise all of these people would not be jumping through hoops, right?

Sorry to say, but it is my considered opinion that our Commander in Chief is a goddamn liar, and if so, gutless.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ed


Thank you, thank you Ladies and Germs....

Also, consider the charade of the "poison gas" drills ... Suit up, suit down etc. Even the reporters, oh my. They must have been pretty darn concerned. Even our buddys in Isreal sealing rooms up and all. Very convincing. There must have been a threat otherwise all of these people would not be jumping through hoops, right?

Sorry to say, but it is my considered opinion that our Commander in Chief is a goddamn liar, and if so, gutless.

Ann Coulter wrote an article recently about leftist treason and how the American people tolerate it because they don't know any better.

Take John Walker for example. There was an American raised by radical leftists in California who traveled to a hostile nation-state to assist them in engaging in warfare against US troops. What did Walker get? 20 years. What did he deserve? A firing squad.

President Bush is the most courageous president we have had in office in over a decade. He had the guts to finally get rid of the Baath Party in Iraq, after the Saddam Hussein regime ignored 58 UN resolutions and fired at our forces every day since the cease-fire in 1991.

The left just doesn't know--doesn't understand--how to deal with a president that is actually an American loyalist and not some leftist Marxist traitor that can be found infesting most leadership circles in European states today.

The defeat of Iraq was brilliant by the Bush administration. It was simply brilliant. The only thing the leaderless left can do now is whine that they have not been informed about the WMD secured there and the further uncovering of the facts regarding European assistance to Iraq in WMD development.

Chirac was smiling today with Bush because we gave him a pass. France is the greatest violator of global security and weapons of mass destruction in the entire middle east as they have assisted Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya and God only knows how many other nation-states with that development.

But the US bit the bullet and gave them a pass.

The defeat of Iraq was real. Leftist treason expansion in all leftist institutions is also real.

Maybe that is why the left has such a hard time dealing with those things loyal to the country and those people leading us in the true spirit of America. Or does the left just project the 'appearance' of treason without actually seeking it?

JK

[Gem]

To me, it's only logical that Isreal and US soldiers be prepared for chemical/bilogical attacks. They are after all going there because their leaders said they were there. It just makes sense, and if there weren't any launched, no one was harmed.

It's a good bet that if you think the enemy has WMD, he will use them.

Now if there ARE WMDs or not, time will tell.

I am very scared to think of what would happen if Bush and/or the intelignce services did lie to us. *shudder*

Gem

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Ann Coulter wrote an article recently about leftist treason and how the American people tolerate it because they don't know any better.

JK

You miss my point. GWB could have gone the human rights route to justify a war with Iraq, risky, but he might have carried the day. He did not, he lied. Pure and simple.


Why did he not say "this guy (Hussain, not you JK) is a murderous bastard and, since the rest of the world is perfidious, we are going to take him out". Honest and true. He took the safer ("ooooh, they are a threat, oooooh they are going to ...ATTACK ... oooooh guys with rags on their heads are going to infiltrate Del Mar Beach incognito) approach. That makes him gutless and a liar. JK, you seem to know a fair amount about a fair amount of stuff (excepting physics, as I recall) you are just hopelessly naive when it comes to politics.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
I am very scared to think of what would happen if Bush and/or the intelignce services did lie to us. *shudder*

Gem

Your kidding, right? Bush and the intel folks haven't lied to us. Please give me examples of how they lied to us.

Want to talk about lies--let's talk about destructive lies weighed against Americans daily, especially men.

Let's talk about the Jupiter-sized lie that women are a minority in the United States.

Want to peer into a real lie? Take a look at every newspaper in the United States. Find one article that talks about expanding freedom in this country, rather than taking freedom away. I am not talking about post-9/11 either. Start looking at newspapers since 1970 ( the rise of matriarchal terror).

JK

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Start looking at newspapers since 1970 ( the rise of matriarchal terror).
JK

Did you get any on 'ya in '69? And it was published? Links?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ed
You miss my point. GWB could have gone the human rights route to justify a war with Iraq, risky, but he might have carried the day. He did not, he lied. Pure and simple.


Why did he not say "this guy (Hussain, not you JK) is a murderous bastard and, since the rest of the world is perfidious, we are going to take him out". Honest and true. He took the safer ("ooooh, they are a threat, oooooh they are going to ...ATTACK ... oooooh guys with rags on their heads are going to infiltrate Del Mar Beach incognito) approach. That makes him gutless and a liar. JK, you seem to know a fair amount about a fair amount of stuff (excepting physics, as I recall) you are just hopelessly naive when it comes to politics.

Bush went to war using logic similar to mine. That is why his plan was brilliant.

Can you imagine approaching Europe with just a humanitarian foundation for it? You have got to be kidding me.

European leftists stood by and watched as hundreds of thousands were butchered in the Balkans, sealing their borders and preventing women and children from fleeing the killing fields of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

The only thing European government cares about is stealing the wealth of their citizens to advance radical leftist socialist causes, plundering Southern Europe to create a European-caste zone in the continent and chipping away at US national sovereignty using the Marxist UN.

There is more to politics than feminist myths and the advancement of leftist perversion in the United States. It must be quite shocking for leftists to have their eyes opened with current events. Unlike feminist agendas, the war in Iraq was something that couldn't be explained away by leftists this time, huh. That is why for the past month all the left can do is talk about it like they are on a fishing trip lol. A fishing trip in a lifeless, acid lake.

WMD will be produced from Iraq. I will wager you on it. What interests me is what the left is going to say when it happens. Will the left apologize?

Anyway, it is fun being politically naive. :D

JK

[Gem]

JK, I meant IF Bush lied to us. I do not have any convincing facts that he lied. I was just saying that if Bush DID lie (keyword: IF), it would be scary.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
JK, I meant IF Bush lied to us. I do not have any convincing facts that he lied. I was just saying that if Bush DID lie (keyword: IF), it would be scary.

Gem

Bush didn't lie. That is the whole point. Saddam's regime was actively producing weapons of mass destruction for decades.

The delay that France and Germany created at the UN which hindered immediate action in Iraq was specifically designed to assist the Iraqi regime in hiding their WMD.

Saddam didn't use WMD against our troops because he is not as insane as we thought he was. He knew that if he used that ordinance on us we could respond 1000 x severely. But since he didn't use any, his regime is 'angelic' in the eyes of the left lol. It is simply unbelievable.

I think the problem with the left in this matter isn't the WMD. I think the left is still in shock about the war itself. The left is still juggling with their ideological belief that war should not have happened no matter what. The left believes that all problems, all crisis, can be resolved by 'talking' about it. You know, talking things over. Eventually those rebellious Iraqis would 'get it' and come over to our side.

At the same time, European socialist governments (antisemitic governments) were celebrating the pressure being put on Israel by agents of Iraq and Iran. US intervention shot those plans to hell. No wonder France and Germany are so pissed off about the Iraq invasion. It changed the entire landscape of the middle east, possibly forever.

If only Saddam did something to make himself look like a patriotic masculine American male. Then the left would have sent in troops with flamethrowers and held banquets in Bush's honor for doing it.

Jesus, I love being politically naive lol. :D

JK

[Ed]

Originally posted by Gem
JK, I meant IF Bush lied to us. I do not have any convincing facts that he lied. I was just saying that if Bush DID lie (keyword: IF), it would be scary.

Gem

We had knowledge:rolleyes: about WMD's, their whereabouts, their nature; that was the rationale for war. If they cannot now be found it suggests strongly that we really did not know where they were, and if we did not know that, how then, praytell, could we have known that they even existed? Jesus Focking Christ on a menorah. Heisenberg does not apply here. To know they exist, with certitude (and it better be certain if we are going to war over it) we must know where they are, and if we do not know where they are how can we be certain that they exist? It does not make sense any other way.

[Jedi Knight]

Here is the key to the problem and it is so obvious it stands out like a christmas tree bulb.

Saddam used WMD against his own people two decades ago. Almost all his WMD production facilities and mobile trailers were decontaminated prior to the US invasion while the munitions were buried in random locations.

What does that mean? It means that someone, some government that knew we were going to invade, warned Saddam we were coming. I bet it was France too. I bet France not only warned Saddam that we were coming but gave his regime the timeline.

JK

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The left believes that all problems, all crisis, can be resolved by 'talking' about it. You know, talking things over. Eventually those rebellious Iraqis would 'get it' and come over to our side.

So true. I had a leftist female(thus she was matriarchal) teacher in college last year who was convinced the U.S. would lose the war and thought we should solve our problems with Iraq by non-violent protests of their policies or something like that.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by JAR

So true. I had a leftist female(thus she was matriarchal) teacher in college last year who was convinced the U.S. would lose the war and thought we should solve our problems with Iraq by non-violent protests of their policies or something like that.

You should have asked her how many UN resolutions over the 58 of them that took 12 years would have got the message through to Iraq.

lol

JK

[Ed]

Not to state the obvous but .... the entire world knew that we were going to invade. It would not take a cheese sucker to tip off what's his name.

And if they were destroyed, what was our rationale for invading?

Come on, JK, this dog don't hunt. Give it up. We got rid of a world class SOB with rationales that were dubious (dubya? Hmmmm) at best.

My only point is that GWB is a gutless liar, that's all. Even you must admit that.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ed
Not to state the obvous but .... the entire world knew that we were going to invade. It would not take a cheese sucker to tip off what's his name.

And if they were destroyed, what was our rationale for invading?

Come on, JK, this dog don't hunt. Give it up. We got rid of a world class SOB with rationales that were dubious (dubya? Hmmmm) at best.

My only point is that GWB is a gutless liar, that's all. Even you must admit that.

We sent massive forces to Kuwait/Saudi Arabia twice since 1991 and then sent them home without invading Iraq.

Someone told Saddam--provided his regime with information about our invasion plans. That venue was a state-actor, probably France.

But look, nothing I say is going to change your mind about President Bush. I think President Bush and John Ashcroft and Condolezza Rice are really great people. So is Mr. Secretary Rumsfeld. I think the United States is blessed to have these people running the country.

That said, why are you calling Bush a gutless liar? He never lied about Iraqi WMD. He provided information about Iraq WMD that was accurate. Just because it hasn't been located yet doesn't change the truth that it has been photographed and eye-witnessed by Iraqi scientists themselves.

Are you going to tell me that 100,000 Iraqis in northern Iraq didn't die from Saddam's sarin weapons in the 1980's?

Seriously Ed, how did Bush 'lie'? I asked that question before but didn't get a reply to it. We already found mobile biological weapons labs and chemical weapons labs over there which is evidence enough. Want to see some of the pictures of them? Ghenghis was showing them the other day.

So is it really the WMD thing or perhaps you just don't like Bush no matter what he does? Are you a loyal democrat?

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Someone told Saddam--provided his regime with information about our invasion plans. That venue was a state-actor, probably France.JK I would say it was most probably George W. himself:
let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. State of the Union speech, January 29. :p

Or could it have been Colin Powell in his speech to the UN February 5?

Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world. :p

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


We sent massive forces to Kuwait/Saudi Arabia twice since 1991 and then sent them home without invading Iraq.

true, stupid on our part

Someone told Saddam--provided his regime with information about our invasion plans. That venue was a state-actor, probably France.

you think we told France?????????? Frankly, I think that he watched Hanity and Coumbs

But look, nothing I say is going to change your mind about President Bush.

Only WMD's will. BTW, I voted for him and like him until he started lieing.

I think President Bush and John Ashcroft and Condolezza Rice are really great people. So is Mr. Secretary Rumsfeld.

Ashcroft is dangerous, IMO. I know a guy whos best friend married Rummy's daughter. He was best man and was pretty impressed with Rummy's intellect. From what I can see I think that he might be the sharpest guy there.

I think the United States is blessed to have these people running the country.

Except for Ashcroft

That said, why are you calling Bush a gutless liar? He never lied about Iraqi WMD. He provided information about Iraq WMD that was accurate.

By any realistic assessment of what he said that is simply not true. Reread my post on thte logic of his assertions

Just because it hasn't been located yet doesn't change the truth that it has been photographed and eye-witnessed by Iraqi scientists themselves.

With respect, so have UFO's. I'll say the same thing here: "Show me the physical evidence" and please, not an old hubcap.

Are you going to tell me that 100,000 Iraqis in northern Iraq didn't die from Saddam's sarin weapons in the 1980's?

JK, WTF doe that have to do with GWB's honesty? And I believe that he gassed them

Seriously Ed, how did Bush 'lie'? I asked that question before but didn't get a reply to it.

I replied. Tell me where my argument is wrong

We already found mobile biological weapons labs and chemical weapons labs over there which is evidence enough. Want to see some of the pictures of them? Ghenghis was showing them the other day.

Hubcaps. We went to war over that? Please

So is it really the WMD thing or perhaps you just don't like Bush no matter what he does?

I happen to like him a lot. I think that he is effective. I used to think that he was honest, well, as honest as a politition can be). I don't like being lied to. I don't like being treated like a child. I still like him, he is just a lier

Are you a loyal democrat?

no. I am a conservatiive republican in fiscal matters and liberal when it comes to some social issues. A bit of libertarianism too. Basically, I hate the idea of government as a career as opposed to an avocation. I love term limits since I think that profesional polititions are crooks. I don't like labels, however, they suggest a lack of subtlety on the part of those that use them.

JK [/B]

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Bush went to war using logic similar to mine. l

That has to be the single most scary sentence I've yet to read in this forum.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Your kidding, right? Bush and the intel folks haven't lied to us. Please give me examples of how they lied to us.

How about when he referenced a Blue Chip Economic Forecast report to support his economic policy, but according to the BCEF the report never existed?

How about his constantly repeating the lie about Saddam and the incubators?

How about his lying about the aluminum tubes found being for nuclear weapons when they're completely the wrong type?

How about his constantly lying about Saddam's connection to the 9/11 attacks when there has never been evidence of any such thing?

How about his lies during the SOTU address saying that the inspectors had found evidence of WMD when they had found no such thing?

What about when he said the IAEA had conclusive evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq when the IAEA themselves say there was no such evidence?

Even the fact that Bush is in any way "conservative" is a complete lie. He has grown the government at a much higher rate than any President since LBJ!

How about those lies, JK?

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek


How about when he referenced a Blue Chip Economic Forecast report to support his economic policy, but according to the BCEF the report never existed?

How about those lies, JK?


Easy there. One lie at a time.:D

[Sundog]

Glad you're back. :D

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by shanek


How about when he referenced a Blue Chip Economic Forecast report to support his economic policy, but according to the BCEF the report never existed?

How about his constantly repeating the lie about Saddam and the incubators?

How about his lying about the aluminum tubes found being for nuclear weapons when they're completely the wrong type?

How about his constantly lying about Saddam's connection to the 9/11 attacks when there has never been evidence of any such thing?

How about his lies during the SOTU address saying that the inspectors had found evidence of WMD when they had found no such thing?

What about when he said the IAEA had conclusive evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq when the IAEA themselves say there was no such evidence?

Even the fact that Bush is in any way "conservative" is a complete lie. He has grown the government at a much higher rate than any President since LBJ!

How about those lies, JK?

Those were all 'fluid justifications' (highly flexible and non-permanent) for going to war with Iraq. The weapons were a big part of it and we found some, with more to find later, but they weren't the only reason why we went to war with Iraq again.

But wait, we were still at war with Iraq anyway. Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement at the end of the first Persian Gulf War and then violated it, meaning we had a green light to go in anyway.

'Fluid justifications' always help in going to war to demonstrate dangerousness in time-sensitive situations, but the world knows that Iraq ignored 58 UN resolutions over 12 years, making a mockery of the UN.

War is foggy, but look on the bright side. The Iraqi people are free now. (well, until feminist cultural terrorists do a real job on them like they have the United States).

JK

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Those were all 'fluid justifications'
JK

Waffle syrup.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Sundog


Waffle syrup.

It works. That is all that matters. :D

JK

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It works. That is all that matters. :D

JK

However, too much has unfortunate side effects.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It works. That is all that matters. :D

JK

That remains to be seen. The fact is that he lied. He could have gotten the same result with honesty. Will you please refute my logic regarding this lieing dog?

Sundog, thank you.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It works. That is all that matters. :D

JK

At what point should a loyal, patriotic soldier become upset that he is being manipulated?

I'm imagining a lot of heroes over there that thought they were putting their lives on the line to protect America from WMD's. Should they just swallow it and go on to the next thing, or would they be right to feel betrayed at some point?

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


That has to be the single most scary sentence I've yet to read in this forum.

I agree. I don't think this Jedi Knight person is real. I think it's a grad studen't pseudo AI project or something, spitting out at random odd little soundbites.

"Bush went to war using logic similar to mine. That is why his plan was brilliant." is a true winner.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The Iraqi people are free now. (well, until feminist cultural terrorists do a real job on them like they have the United States).

JK
:D :D :

[DanishDynamite]

It's a farce. It would be funny if it didn't actually happen.

The US vilification of Germany and especially France because they weren't convinced by the evidence that WMD were present or soon available, now seems...uh....slightly inappropriate. It turns out that the inassailable evidence which apparently couldn't be made public, but which was completely convincing to Bush and Blair, not only wasn't there before the war - it isn't there now.

For some reason I doubt that the vehement proponents of a pre-emptive war "in self-defense" will own up to their "mistake". The excuses are already surfacing.

Machiavelli, my friends.

What a farce.

[Ed]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
What a farce.

It is worse than that, my mammoth herding friend. The President of the United States of America looked the world in the eye and lied. It is mortifying, a deep embarassment to all americans.

Forget nonsense like "it worked". That is a childish rationalization that ignores the magnitude of what he did.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Ed


It is worse than that, my mammoth herding friend. The President of the United States of America looked the world in the eye and lied. It is mortifying, a deep embarassment to all americans.

Forget nonsense like "it worked". That is a childish rationalization that ignores the magnitude of what he did. EdGod! (I bow down before your Majestic and much awaited return!)

In regard to the topic at hand, I'm glad to see at least one American standing tall and acknowledging what has actually occured.

Kudos, my ICBM-dragging friend.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ed


It is worse than that, my mammoth herding friend. The President of the United States of America looked the world in the eye and lied. It is mortifying, a deep embarassment to all americans.

Forget nonsense like "it worked". That is a childish rationalization that ignores the magnitude of what he did.

Ed, Bush didn't lie. Neither did the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

WMD production equipment has already been found in Iraq.

The missile that almost took out the command headquarters of the US forces in Bahrain the first night of the war and fired by Iraq was an illegal missile, banned by UN resolutions years before. You must have missed that one.

You are acting like an apologist now. Just because Saddam's weapons engineers didn't have munitions stacked in perfect piles for us like a grocery store doesn't lessen the truth that WMD was found in Iraq. Banned weapons were found.

Check out what the Director of Central Intelligence said today about it:

STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

Integrity and objectivity are hallmarks of the intelligence profession. Our role is to call it like we see it -- to tell policymakers what we know, what we don't know, what we think, and what we base it on. That's the code we live by and that is what policymakers expect from us. That is exactly what was done and continues to be done on intelligence issues related to Iraq.

I am enormously proud of the work of our analysts. The integrity of our process was maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong.

George J. Tenet

So there you go Ed. Tell you what I will do. You provide evidence that Bush lied rather than just following a leftist polarized lead and 'say' he did and I will go over it with you. Bush never lied.

Bush said that Saddam posed a grave danger to the world because of the capability he had to produce WMD--that is a truth. (well, not anymore since Saddam has been overthrown). Those aluminum tubes used for enriching uranium are real. Someone mentioned they weren't. They were.

We just captured a biological weapons mobile laboratory. Tony Blair said that Britain has proof of WMD found in Iraq that has not been released yet.

I think you just have an axe to grind because you don't like President Bush personally. Bush is a great man. Perhaps you should show him more respect.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
EdGod! (I bow down before your Majestic and much awaited return!)

In regard to the topic at hand, I'm glad to see at least one American standing tall and acknowledging what has actually occured.

Kudos, my ICBM-dragging friend.

What has actually occurred? You aren't talking about the conspiracy theory Ed is pushing, right?

JK

[DanishDynamite]

Jedi Knight:Ed, Bush didn't lie. Neither did the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

WMD production equipment has already been found in Iraq.No it hasn't. If it had, we would know about it, given the pressure on the US administration to provide evidence...any evidence at all.
The missile that almost took out the command headquarters of the US forces in Bahrain the first night of the war and fired by Iraq was an illegal missile, banned by UN resolutions years before. You must have missed that one.That missile had nothing to do with WMD. Try to get real, JK.
You are acting like an apologist now. Just because Saddam's weapons engineers didn't have munitions stacked in perfect piles for us like a grocery store doesn't lessen the truth that WMD was found in Iraq. Banned weapons were found. Keep repeating this mantra for 48 hours and I expect you will believe it.
Check out what the Director of Central Intelligence said today about it:

STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

Integrity and objectivity are hallmarks of the intelligence profession. Our role is to call it like we see it -- to tell policymakers what we know, what we don't know, what we think, and what we base it on. That's the code we live by and that is what policymakers expect from us. That is exactly what was done and continues to be done on intelligence issues related to Iraq.

I am enormously proud of the work of our analysts. The integrity of our process was maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong.

George J. TenetWOW! That is so convincing!

On the other hand, it isn't stated what the CIA told Bush and his team, or whether their subsequent actions were justified in the eyes of the CIA and the information they provided.
So there you go Ed. Tell you what I will do. You provide evidence that Bush lied rather than just following a leftist polarized lead and 'say' he did and I will go over it with you. Bush never lied.Tell you what, JK. You provide evidence that the statements made by the US administration were logical conclusions based on the evidence presented to them, and I'll go over it with you.
Bush said that Saddam posed a grave danger to the world because of the capability he had to produce WMD--that is a truth. (well, not anymore since Saddam has been overthrown). It is a truth in the same way that you are a danger.
Those aluminum tubes used for enriching uranium are real. Someone mentioned they weren't. They were.*sigh*
We just captured a biological weapons mobile laboratory. Tony Blair said that Britain has proof of WMD found in Iraq that has not been released yet.Reeeeealy? Wow, if only the word of the double B's meant anything to anyone now.

[Ed]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
EdGod! (I bow down before your Majestic and much awaited return!)

Yessirree Bob. A second coming ... Very Biblical

In regard to the topic at hand, I'm glad to see at least one American standing tall and acknowledging what has actually occured.

Kudos, my ICBM-dragging friend.

Ummm...how to put this. You see, that is not really an ICBM, it is ...ummmm rather ummmmm my (how to say this) Pleasure Pole. See? All we 'Mericans have them, it is just that not all of us wave them around like enormous cured salamis.

[Baker]

This is an out rage no president of the United States has ever lied to the America public before!!

However he will need 5 more terms just to match one of Bill Clintons terms.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Baker
This is an out rage no president of the United States has ever lied to the America public before!!

However he will need 5 more terms just to match one of Bill Clintons terms.

You guys crack me up. You admit Bush lied about this. Then you drag out the Clinton zombie doll and stick another pin in it. And you actually think you've made some kind of point!

Here's how whacky your thinking is: it's OK to lie to the whole world and get us into a war on false pretenses, but heavens, let's not lie about having sex with an intern. That would be wrong.

What a ridiculous world-view. Anything my guy does is OK; anything your guy does is evil.

The maddening thing is that we all knew you right-wingers would refuse to take any responsibility when things went wrong with your little agenda. Sure enough, you're all made of teflon, nothing sticks to you.

Where the heck is RandFan? Now there's a conservative whose debating talents I have some respect for.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Ed, Bush didn't lie. Neither did the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

WMD production equipment has already been found in Iraq.

Look, a couple of broken down trailors don't a WMD threat make. You know as well as I that we could get together and buy a couple of drums of Malthione and aerosolize it and really make a mess of NY, right? Are we WMD kinds of guys if we did that? No, we'd be terrorists. Bush implied that Iraq posed a threat to us because of WMD. A big fat juicy threat. Not a couple of guys being a pain in the ass but a real honest to god threat to the USA. I simply want to see evidence of a state sponsored WMD program. For the reasoms that I have stated, until that occurs, I consider him a liar


The missile that almost took out the command headquarters of the US forces in Bahrain the first night of the war and fired by Iraq was an illegal missile, banned by UN resolutions years before. You must have missed that one.

No, I heard the report at the time. I also recall that the launcher was a lot closer than was thought so the missle did not have to be on the prohibited list. The incident rather vanished from sight so I suspect my recollection is correct. Um, did you miss that one?

You are acting like an apologist now.

[Hang on, I am not apologising for anything, I am simply stating what I perceive to be the facts in the case. You, young Obi Wan, seem to be a bit defensive.

Just because Saddam's weapons engineers didn't have munitions stacked in perfect piles for us like a grocery store doesn't lessen the truth that WMD was found in Iraq. Banned weapons were found.

If it is the truth, and these fine gents in Iraq posed a threat, then we should be able to make an unequivical case. We have not.

Check out what the Director of Central Intelligence said today about it:

STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

Integrity and objectivity are hallmarks of the intelligence profession. Our role is to call it like we see it -- to tell policymakers what we know, what we don't know, what we think, and what we base it on. That's the code we live by and that is what policymakers expect from us. That is exactly what was done and continues to be done on intelligence issues related to Iraq.

I am enormously proud of the work of our analysts. The integrity of our process was maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong.

George J. Tenet

Excellent, perhaps he can produce them

So there you go Ed. Tell you what I will do. You provide evidence that Bush lied rather than just following a leftist polarized lead and 'say' he did and I will go over it with you. Bush never lied .

Don't be silly, you can't prove a negative. All he has to do is produce the promised WMD's. If he cannot, he is a liar. Incidentially, this has nothing more to do with politics than this stupid forum does. A lie is a lie, whatever your persuasion. Right, left, or inbetween, a lie is a lie. You are really beginning to sound like a liberal apologist

Bush said that Saddam posed a grave danger to the world because of the capability he had to produce WMD--that is a truth.

That is a lie, too. He was a threat because HE HAD THEM. Stop spinning the Presidents words.

(well, not anymore since Saddam has been overthrown). Those aluminum tubes used for enriching uranium are real. Someone mentioned they weren't. They were.

So they had a nuke program too? Excellent, more stuff for us all to see.

We just captured a biological weapons mobile laboratory. Tony Blair said that Britain has proof of WMD found in Iraq that has not been released yet.

Great, I hope we will see it. Ummm...why do you think that it has not been released? Does that make you a teensy bit suspicious?


I think you just have an axe to grind because you don't like President Bush personally. Bush is a great man. Perhaps you should show him more respect.

You earn respect. I already said that I like the guy, did you read that? I have no ax to grind other than I want my President to be reasonably honest. Wasn't the joke about Clinton something like "it depends on what is is", and we all laughed. If we, as a nation, are at the point of justifying this war based on the evidence so far put forward, we look foolish. If we act as though we believe it ourselves we look delusional. Neither is particularly attractive for an Uber Power.

Please tell me that you do realize how bad it will be if GWB led us into a war based on a lie. Please tell me that.

JK

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


What has actually occurred? You aren't talking about the conspiracy theory Ed is pushing, right?

JK

Jesus Christ JK, or JC JK:D it has not risen to the level of conspiracy. It has all of the appearences of a grubby lie. Sheesh.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Baker
This is an out rage no president of the United States has ever lied to the America public before!!

However he will need 5 more terms just to match one of Bill Clintons terms.

Bill Clinton was a perfidious bastard. Bringing him up here is just misdirection.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Baker
This is an out rage no president of the United States has ever lied to the America public before!!

However he will need 5 more terms just to match one of Bill Clintons terms.

Don't you think there's just a hint of a difference between lying about wether you've been sucked off by an intern, and lying about why you're starting a war?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Sundog


You guys crack me up. You admit Bush lied about this. Then you drag out the Clinton zombie doll and stick another pin in it. And you actually think you've made some kind of point!

Here's how whacky your thinking is: it's OK to lie to the whole world and get us into a war on false pretenses, but heavens, let's not lie about having sex with an intern. That would be wrong.

What a ridiculous world-view. Anything my guy does is OK; anything your guy does is evil.

The maddening thing is that we all knew you right-wingers would refuse to take any responsibility when things went wrong with your little agenda. Sure enough, you're all made of teflon, nothing sticks to you.

Where the heck is RandFan? Now there's a conservative whose debating talents I have some respect for.


Easy with the labels my canine friend. I consider myself a conservative. I just don't like liars.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Ed



Easy with the labels my canine friend. I consider myself a conservative. I just don't like liars.

OK, what's a fairer term?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Sundog


OK, what's a fairer term?

Delusionists. It is PC because it is label free and can equally apply to all nuts:D

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Ed


Delusionists. It is PC because it is label free and can equally apply to all nuts:D

I stand corrected. I am used to all the conservatives here obediently toeing the party line like a bunch of Oprah fans; it throws me when I run into an independent thinker. Upsets all my stereotypes.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog


You guys crack me up. You admit Bush lied about this. Then you drag out the Clinton zombie doll and stick another pin in it. And you actually think you've made some kind of point!


Where did I admit he lied about the current topic no one will say he is 100% honest and no one will claim he is lying 100% of the time.
I wish we had politicians that never lied to us unfortunately we just have to choose the most qualified for the job which is often the best liar of the group.



Here's how whacky your thinking is: it's OK to lie to the whole world and get us into a war on false pretenses, bu heavens, let's not lie about having sex with an intern. That would be wrong.


Lying about having sex with an intern was just one of many.
Iraq's WMD still needs to be determined. It could very well be that they did destroy all their weapons stocks. Which of course, brings up the question: why did they not cooperate fully?
As well as supporting terrorist groups.



What a ridiculous world-view. Anything my guy does is OK; anything your guy does is evil.

Are you claiming to be an exception in this case?
At least I can agree with this point.


The maddening thing is that we all knew you right-wingers would refuse to take any responsibility when things went wrong with your little agenda. Sure enough, you're all made of teflon, nothing sticks to you.

What is are agenda?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Ed


Bill Clinton was a perfidious bastard.

No argument here.

Bringing him up here is just misdirection.

No its an example plus its apart of the you get my guy all get yours that sundog mentioned.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Those were all 'fluid justifications' (highly flexible and non-permanent) for going to war with Iraq.

What does his economic policy have to do with going to war with Iraq?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


Lying about having sex with an intern was just one of many.
Iraq's WMD still needs to be determined. It could very well be that they did destroy all their weapons stocks. Which of course, brings up the question: why did they not cooperate fully?
As well as supporting terrorist groups.

[/B]

If they did destroy them all, or 99.9% of them, then they did co-operate fully. That co-operation, in respect of WMD, however, was never going to make any difference.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If they did destroy them all, or 99.9% of them, then they did co-operate fully. That co-operation, in respect of WMD, however, was never going to make any difference.



So we where just supposed to just take their word on it?
This was also just one of the many reasons for the war.